Bob Livingston Alerts
We have come to believe that chaos is order. The flip side of sanity is decaying society under the presumption of good.
You who read these Alerts and subscribe to The Bob Livingston Letter will have essentially the information program that I have drawn on for forty years to understand events in this country and the world.
But if we are unaware of the spiritual undertow that dominates politics, world finance and geopolitical action, we can only be automatons going through space and time. We can only live under the greatest deceptions and illusions.
It is certain financial suicide, as well as risk, to any writer who really exposes the religious bond of all politicians and bureaucrats who are united in mind and spirit against the American people. Most writers, which includes those in dozens of private newsletters, don't have a clue as to the esoteric and hidden religious force that motivates and dominates politics and finance in the United States. And if they did, they would not dare print it.
This means that 98 percent of what we read and put our faith in is garbage.
None of it reveals that the goal of this religion is to amalgamate humanity into a proxy for "social justice" and "democracy." These are euphemisms for tyranny over and oppression of the American people.
When the state is your god and you put your faith in government, politics is your religion and it becomes the basis for your entire personal life. This internalization of politics creates the divisions we see in America. Humanity and individuality have been destroyed to make a person into a permanent vassal of the state.
Serious background information is required for this to make sense. This is a super secret, and you may be sure that it is not intended that you or any American should ever know that over the last 150 years, theologians and seminaries have been prostituted to change Christians' expectations of personal salvation and a supernatural kingdom to materialism. Do you need more proof than simply observing what Christmas has become?
There is only a very small remnant in America and the world who really grasp the dogma of religion as the apex of power politics. This secret religion is not separate and distinct. It is invisible because it is woven into all things.
Take, for example, the black robes of the judiciary. What are they if not modern priests' robes? Is a trial not meant to be a solemn, church-like ritual? All must rise as the priestly judge ascends to their dais/altar on high; in a chamber with pews where the public can sit; with a choir (jury); a procession; and even a hammer (gavel) — an emblem of the word of God, and a representation of the conviction and renewal which are necessary in conversion to Christianity.
Is the doctor's white lab coat not another set of priestly robes, meant to confer purity and authority from within a temple-like structure called a "hospital" — the root of which means shelter for the needy, in other words, a place where you go as a supplicant?
True morality in America is now gone. The way to destroy morality is to dilute it. Enough water in the milk and the milk becomes water. The way to conquer a religion is to absorb it. This is what secret cults do rather than open confrontation.
Destroying real Americans
A nation arises from a wealth of faith, heritage, interests and identity held in common — in "commonwealth." These characteristics distinguished America from all the nations, and every nation from America. Even more specifically, Americans were/are European, Christian and free. It has become sacrilegious today, of course, to speak of any of these as "real Americans." The secular, multicultural establishment is offended.
The global elite figured out that liquid wealth provides a means for these real Americans to create and enjoy freedom, so your ability to acquire and hold money is being constantly reduced.
It is no secret that the two-party political system in America is essentially one. It is a lesser-known fact — because it is so utterly unacceptable to most of us — that the two parties have conspired to destroy the Constitution and bring the United States into a new era of intensely personal politics.
The two-party system has been compromised and subverted. Both the Republican "big tent" strategy and the Democratic "diversity" appeal are actually the same. They are used to justify universal religion that is secular on its face but universalism in its origins. Universal religion works in society to create absolute equality, resulting in abject poverty and enslavement for all. This parasitic system is an organism — a religio-political organism.
Is anybody watching? Hillary Clinton learned well her husband's political strategy of "triangulation," which itself is an occult formula derived from Kabbalic alchemy and iconography (the triangle being a symbol of phallic worship and power, as well as the modern symbol of the "gay" revolution). It is no coincidence that the Skull and Bones Order initiate, George W. Bush, also adopted this "triangulation" strategy to gather unprecedented Establishment and popular support for his candidacy for president. He called it "compassionate conservatism."
Hillary and "W," as he is fondly called by the CFR-dominated media, tried to be all things to all people. Both preached this universalism and "diversity" is the subsequent mantra for the masses. Triangulation is universalism. In politics, this is the art of appealing to all ethnic groups, classes and races. The idea is to get the political support of all factions as the most direct route to winning an election and political power. There is no moral commitment to anybody or anything. This is why the only certainty about politics is deception.
The masses have been deceived about religion as much as they have about politics, and probably more. Religion underpins the actions of all men, including Gnosticism, the rule of the "knowing" global elite. Secret societies in the West unite seemingly opposing religious factions by the means of universalism.
Yes, sure, this fact is as unacceptable to the programmed, propagandized masses as is the fact of political control through two seemingly opposite but unified parties. Only the naïve and controlled masses accept religious and political propaganda at face value.
America has been pluralized, diversified. Does no one care and will nothing be done?
The door had already been opened for state intrusion into worship when government began to wield the carrot and stick with a threat to revoke tax-exempt status for religious institutions. Financial warfare joined with mental warfare against us.
So it is perhaps telling that Americans no longer simply accept anything that doesn't interfere with their six-pack and wide-screen TV. The boycotts of Bud Light beer and Target stores demonstrated that there are things most Americans will not accept. Corpro-fascist smugness, arrogance, conceit and materialism have not won the day yet!
The sooner we can recognize all the attempts at melding politics and religion as a terrorist façade meant to destroy the soul of America, the sooner we can begin to throw off this gross deception and see it for what it is.
Materialism properly placed brings balance and quality time to life. Materialism is a tool, not an end, lest we worship at the altar of "universalism."
John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Therefore God had to be pushed out of the schools, the governments and even out of most churches.
Want atheists, secularists, leftists and statist bureaucrats to go crazy? Push the worship of the State out of schools and churches and put politics back into the public sector where it belongs.
Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter®
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader who is a very bright, thoughtful conservative:
+++
+++
Deprogramming 21 st Century Style
A Commentary by Lloyd F. Thompson
"Sadly, so many of those extremists, those MAGA extremists, take their marching orders from
Donald Trump, who has no credibility left by any measure. ... At some point, you know, maybe
there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members." —Hillary Clinton
When I heard this chilling proposal by the former Secretary of State, it caused me to note that
anytime a person of influence says something crazy, take it seriously. And, it reminded me of
why Marxists (or other totalitarians) do not want history to be taught. Deprograming and “re-
education” of political opponents, although not specifically labelled as such, has been around
for a long time. Does the former first lady really want a repeat of this ghastly history? Would
she be there to cut the ribbon when the first re-education camp opens?
One of the most horrific examples of political opponent repression began in March of 1933
when the Nazis opened Dachau, a mere ten miles from Munich, where they could conveniently
house and re-educate them. Under the initial direction of one Heinrich Himmler, this re-
education or concentration camp ran until May 1945. By the end of that period, the Nazis had a
total of 980 of these camps, and thousands of other horrific establishments. The
term concentration camp is generally defined as: "A camp where persons are confined, usually
without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a
group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable." Or, to use Hillary’s
term – "deplorable!"
Mrs. Clinton is an educated woman; Wellesley College no less. The subject of her thesis at that
august institution was Saul Alinsky. You know, the guy who wrote “Rules for Radicals” and
dedicated the work to Lucifer. Hillary wrote of his “compelling personality” and she, like Bill
Ayers (remember him, the “Weather Underground” Alinskyite radical) is now calling for
something so un-American that it clearly identifies her as an extremist!
Her loss to Donald Trump was a godsend. Just think if this evil-minded, sanctimonious shrew
were now seated in the Oval Office. But think a little further. What would make an American
take such a radical, hateful view of fellow citizens with whom one disagrees? Narcissism is
probably the emotion driving this hate for Mr. Trump and his supporters. I’m no psychologist,
but as I understand it the hallmarks of a narcissistic personality disorder are grandiosity, a lack of
empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. Seems to fit her like a custom-tailored glove.
There are therapies for this disorder where patients learn to empathize with themselves, and
eventually learn to empathize with others. In a real sense, such patients are deprogrammed.
How ironic!
##################
From a very good conservative friend who is also a memo reader.
I thanked him and wrote back: " The Kennedy School at Harvard is a direct threat to America's survival. Harvard's Kennedy School trains radicals to become more radical before they enter government and become increasingly dangerous."
Progressives matriculate at this School in order to link arms with other like minded souls who then go on to make up America's elite so they can earn millions while living off tax payer's so they can afford to live in toney Georgetown.
+++
+++
Israel—and America—Have No Choice but to Act
As Israel begins its ground invasion in Gaza, Niall Ferguson and Jay Mens on the hard strategic decisions facing the West.
By Niall Ferguson and Jay Mens
Zugzwang is one of the ultimate challenges for a chess player. In zugzwang, a player is in a situation where any move can only weaken one’s position and carries the risk of checkmate—but not moving isn’t an option. Beyond the intrinsic horror of Hamas’s October 7 massacre, it is now obvious that the attack was designed to provoke Israel into reacting. The extent of the zugzwang is increasingly clear, and Israel has few good options. Nor does the United States.
No one should have been surprised by the attacks on Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Over the last year, there have been more than a dozen public meetings between Iranian officials and the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and PIJ. Enormous quantities of men and matériel have moved from Iraq into Syria, with other matériel arriving by land and air to Lebanon. Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the common thread of the region’s so-called “Axis of Resistance,” have worked to build and consolidate enormous bunkers and fortifications across Syria along with Hezbollah. Some anticipated another Lebanon War, others expected another Gaza War, and others expected a Third Intifada. The only thing few—if any—expected was a design to drag Israel into all these battles and several more at once.
The Imperative to Act
In the aftermath of October 7, Israel must strike back. Propelled by nationwide rage, a new government of national unity in Jerusalem has vowed to destroy Hamas. If that is the true goal, a ground operation in Gaza is necessary. Such an operation began in Israel on Friday night. The very nature of urban warfare means that it will have an enormous human cost and an uncertain duration. And this is not just urban warfare: there are two Gazas—the aboveground and the underground network of tunnels where Hamas’s men and weapons are stored.
And time is not on Israel’s side. International support is already waning, and nowhere more than in the Arab world. Egypt and Jordan, Israel’s most important security partners in the region, have already accused Israel of planning the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Worse still, the operation will tie down a significant portion of Israel’s manpower and assets. Israel will, as a result, be especially vulnerable to the risk of overextension.
Gaza isn’t the only problem. There is also the West Bank, where unrest is already growing and where the Palestinian Authority is at risk of collapse. Then, to the north, Hezbollah has its vast arsenal of rockets, drones, men, and missiles in Lebanon, while on the Syrian border tens of thousands of Iraqi militants have amassed with the goal of “liberating” the Golan. Thousands more Iranian-made drones and ballistic missiles are spread out across dozens of bases in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. For that reason, Israel now relies on American support. Jerusalem is likely waiting for the last of American reinforcements—including another carrier strike group—to arrive in the region prior to launching its attack. But is there an alternative?
The Cost of Inaction
Israel cannot not move—the essence of zugzwang. Those calling for a cease-fire do not seem to understand the existential implications of October 7, or the fact that 224 people, including many children, have now been held hostage by Hamas for three weeks.
Allowing Hamas to maintain its Islamist dystopia in the Gaza Strip after the October 7 massacre would leave Israel in a state of permanent fear. Several hundred thousand Israelis are already internally displaced from the north and the south. They will not return to their homes until it is truly safe to do so. Worse still, inaction would grant Iran’s Axis of Resistance a proof of concept, emboldening their belief that Israel’s days are numbered. Talk of a cease-fire or “pause”—already the favorite term at the United Nations and among European social democrats—is equally delusional. Despite the enormous humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Gaza, inaction would allow Hamas and its allies to regroup and reorganize, all the while worsening an already damaged image of Israeli deterrence.
Since Israel’s founding in 1948, its enemies have relied on attrition tactics to stretch the country’s capabilities and intensify periods of political crisis. Since Egypt-backed Palestinian militants raided the Sinai in the 1950s, the goal has been to undermine Israeli domestic confidence, to drain the country economically, and to wear out its military resources. Five out of Israel’s nine biggest wars began as wars of attrition and ended with large-scale reprisal operations. In all but one of these cases, Israel sought to break a pattern of near-daily attacks through a decisive offensive action. The same pattern is repeating itself today.
Yet decisive action is difficult when the goal is effectively a regime change in Gaza, the possible destruction of Hezbollah, and retaliation against attacks from Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Even with complete American support, Israel must wage a campaign of months, possibly even years, to achieve such an ambitious objective.
Aron Nimzowitsch, one of history’s greatest chess players, famously quipped that “the threat is stronger than the execution.” The concern is that the coming Israeli response—when the threats of the last three weeks have to be executed—will lead to a loss of control and ultimately defeat.
The Cost of Action
The prospect of a multifront war means that Israel would be hard-pressed to attack Iran itself. The United States has the ability to attack Iran. The question is if it has the will to do so. Right now, it seems the answer is no.
It is telling that the Biden administration did not meaningfully retaliate to more than a dozen attacks by Iranian proxies in a single week, causing over 30 American casualties. Only on Friday did U.S. forces launch two air strikes against facilities used by the IRGC and its proxies in eastern Syria. But these were billed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin as “precision self-defense strikes” because, in Austin’s words, “The United States does not seek conflict and has no intention nor desire to engage in further hostilities.”
Equally revealing is the White House’s continued prevarication about the extent of Iran’s involvement on October 7. The administration’s repeated suggestion that it was little more than an enthusiastic bystander is impossible to reconcile with the evidence that, for example, 500 Hamas terrorists got specialized combat instruction at Iranian facilities as recently as September. This is Iran’s war. But this administration refuses to acknowledge as much for fear that it will be compelled to act.
But even “precision self-defense” action has a cost—namely, that it emboldens rather than impairs the enemy. Should the war nevertheless escalate, the United States could face a massive wave of attacks against its military assets in the region, forcing it to choose between effective capitulation or another “forever war” in the Middle East.
Moreover, given the deep reluctance of the United States to do anything that might be interpreted as escalation, Iran may well seize the moment finally to test a nuclear weapon. That would be a sort of regional “checkmate.” The latest estimates suggest that Iran would need only around four weeks to acquire enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb and would only need around six months to prepare a test—just in time for the eve of the U.S. presidential election.
The Failure to Deter
Deterrence is not the Biden administration’s strong suit. The debacle of its withdrawal from Afghanistan was a signal to the world’s bad actors that America was indeed “back”—that is, the America that had abandoned South Vietnam to its fate. Far from deterring Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine, Team Biden lifted the sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, reduced weapons deliveries to Ukraine, and effectively pledged that the most they would do if Moscow stepped up its aggression against Kyiv was to impose more sanctions.
The same can be said of the decision to drop the Trump administration’s quite successful strategy of militarily containing Iran between Israel and the Arab states—the approach which produced the Abraham Accords—in favor of a doomed attempt to resuscitate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. Far from deterring Tehran, this encouraged it to continue funding its malignant proxies in the region and ensured it had more funds available to give them.
No one can read the mind of Xi Jinping, but there should be no doubt that China is watching all this and calculating. With crises afoot in Eastern Europe and now the Middle East, the Pentagon’s nightmare is a third crisis in the Far East, the region where the stakes are highest. It is not hard to imagine a Chinese blockade of Taiwan—perhaps with January’s election there as the pretext. The United States, which no longer has the vast military-industrial complex of the first Cold War, would be torn between three simultaneous conflicts, each making demands on a finite stockpile of weapons and munitions.
The New Axis
More than two decades ago, David Frum dreamt up an “Axis of Evil’’ for George W. Bush’s post-9/11 State of the Union address. It was a fiction. Today’s Axis, by contrast, is real. Without Xi’s approval and substantial economic support, Putin would not have risked his invasion of Ukraine. It was no accident that the two men were together in Beijing just over a week ago, their 42nd meeting in ten years, as Xi proudly pointed out. Iran, which sells weapons to Russia and oil to China, is the third active member of this new Axis. North Korea, also supplying Moscow with munitions, makes four.
While the United States has many more allies in Europe and in Asia, and its alliance network responded well to the attack on Ukraine, there is much less transatlantic unity on the question of Israel and the Palestinians. And in the event of a showdown over Taiwan, it is hard to know how many allies Washington could really count on.
As is painfully clear from the print version of Jake Sullivan’s Foreign Affairs article—which went to press before the October 7 attacks on Israel—the national security adviser was hoping the Middle East would stay “quieter than it has been for decades” while he focused on containing China. Biden’s approach, wrote Sullivan, “returns discipline to U.S. policy. It emphasizes deterring aggression, de-escalating conflicts, and integrating the region through joint infrastructure projects and new partnerships, including between Israel and its Arab neighbors. And it is bearing fruit.” Strange fruit, indeed.
Israel’s zugzwang does not mean its defeat. As in chess, however, sacrifice will be necessary for Israel to escape it. A ground operation in Gaza will likely lead to a Third Lebanon War. Israel will truly find itself “fighting for the homeland,” in the parlance of Israeli commentators. Victory would bring security, at least for a time. But it would come at an enormous human and political cost.
A Concerted Response
A more optimistic view is that with unequivocal and effective support from the United States, Israel may find a way to take advantage of Iranian hubris—Tehran’s growing belief in Israel’s imminent defeat. Iran could end up sending its prized proxies into battle, only to have them crippled by a concerted American and Israeli response. Severing the tentacles of the Islamic Republic’s “octopus” would not only allow Israel to come out stronger, but would go some way toward winning back the long-lost confidence of America’s regional partners, particularly in the Gulf.
The problem for Israel is that, unlike chess, this is a multiplayer game. And the main player on Israel’s side, the United States, does not yet appreciate that it too is under zugzwang. Israel and America have to act. And they have to act together. The alternative is victory not only for Hamas, not only for Iran, but also for the new Axis the Western world confronts.
Niall Ferguson is the Milbank Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and the author of DOOM: The Politics of Catastrophe. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @nfergus. Jay Mens is a senior analyst at Greenmantle, a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, and Ernest May Fellow for History and Policy at Harvard Kennedy School.
+++++++++++
Kenneth Levin on How the Oslo Syndrome Led to the Gaza War
Middle East Forum Webinar
by Marilyn Stern
Kenneth Levin, a psychiatrist, historian, and author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege, spoke to an October 20 Middle East Forum webinar (video). The following is a summary of his comments:
Israel is a study in the psychology of "chronically attacked populations . . . by the surrounding majority" that leads some of the besieged to "assuage their attackers." Such was the case with the Oslo Accords in 1993, a pair of agreements in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It is against this background that one finds some "common threads" between two separate events — the failed accords, and the failed attempt to "manage Hamas" that led to the October 7 attacks and Israel's subsequent counter-offensive Gaza war.
The Jewish state has been under attack throughout its existence. The Israeli left formulated and championed the Oslo accords, which called for mutually agreed negotiations between the Israeli government and the then-head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat. The left believed that "peace could be won" by making "territorial concessions" to the Palestinian Authority (PA). While Oslo proceeded, Arafat publicly gave speeches in Arabic to his supporters that his participation was a ruse. His tactic of gaining territory through negotiations would be the first step of the Plan of Phases — a deceptive strategy to accomplish the true objective of "Israel's annihilation."
Counterintuitively, Israel calculated that continued participation in the accords afforded some level of control in uncontrollable circumstances, even after acknowledging that Arafat and the PA colluded with the Hamas terror group in Gaza. The left was under no illusion that Hamas, a "genocidal, antisemitic organization," could be induced to negotiate peace since its charter calls for the murder of all Jews as a "religious obligation." Given the choice between bad and worse, the left rationalized that the PA's veneer of moderation presented to the West was the lesser of two evils. Tolerating it would buy time for Israel to incentivize the PA towards peace.
Exploiting the Israeli left's "delusional" thinking, Arafat unleashed a terror war against Israel in 2000. From the start of Oslo in 1993 until nearly ten years later, Israelis killed in terror attacks exceeded fourteen hundred — comparable to the number Hamas murdered on October 7. The terror war in 2000 moved the Israeli public to the right and by then, Oslo had already failed. Although the PA governed Gaza following Israel's withdrawal from the Strip in 2005, Hamas was voted into power by the Gazans and took control in 2007.
At that time, any attempt by the Jewish state to eradicate Hamas posed a great risk to Israel's troops. Moreover, the question of who would administer Gaza after the fact loomed. Israel had no interest in governing two million Gazans, and installing the PA would only be "exchanging one genocidally anti-Semitic group for another." The possibility that international forces could administer Gaza belied Israel's dismal experience with them in the past. Such an administration would block Israel from pursuing terrorists. Inevitably, a new terror group would emerge, and peacekeepers would flee. Israel concluded that it would be back to where it started, or even worse.
Instead of solving the problem of Hamas, the Israeli military chose to manage periodic waves of terror by "mowing the grass," i.e., periodically setting Hamas back to "buy us some time." As Hamas grew, and its missiles became more lethal, another delusional notion of disincentivizing Hamas from attacking Israel surfaced. This was the idea that Israel's technological achievements and advances could somehow entice Hamas away from its genocidal raison d'etre. That Hamas would partake in the benefits that Israeli progress and peace offered was just "as delusional as the peace via concessions" failure. This delusion added to "a legacy of Oslo."
Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor in the PA, is as committed to Israel's destruction as Arafat was. He similarly uses the PA's "media, mosques, and schools" to incite the next generation of Palestinian Arabs in Jew-hatred with the goal of destroying Israel. The Israeli elites tolerated Arafat, as they do Abbas, in the mistaken belief that the PA could be coaxed towards peace. Like Arafat, Abbas traveled in elite global circles, defaming Israel in every venue while eliciting massive amounts of Western and European funds. These funds were ostensibly for the betterment of the Palestinian Arabs, but the leaders of the corrupt regime shunted much of it into Swiss bank accounts and are now "worth billions." Israel took the same approach with Hamas, permitting Qatar to pour money into Gaza "to incentivize the avoidance of military explosions," allowing some seventeen thousand Gazans to work in Israel and returning their wages to Gaza.
In the lead-up to October 7, Hamas exploited Israel's eagerness with deceptive maneuvers, to the terror group's advantage. In the last two years, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terror group in Gaza engaged in two smaller wars with Israel. By not joining PIJ, Hamas misled Israel into believing that its incentives were tempering the terror group, which was yet another "extension of Oslo-type thinking." Egypt, acting as "interlocutor," conveyed Hamas's message of the group's readiness for a "long-term ceasefire" to Israel. The lie was one more "maneuver" in Hamas's preparation over the last two years for its October 7 attack. Essentially it was "playing on the Israeli predilection to believe that Hamas could be contained."
Going forward, any delusion Israel indulges about pacifying genocidally anti-Semitic organizations is self-destructive. If these organizations remain, the impulse to placate the enemy is an internal problem that will resurface.
Going forward, any delusion Israel indulges about pacifying genocidally anti-Semitic organizations is self-destructive. If these organizations remain, the impulse to placate the enemy is an internal problem that will resurface. The danger is that any lull followed by threats will elicit the same pattern of concessions and rationalizations. To withstand those internal pressures, "you need good Israeli leadership who points out the nonsense underlying that comprehension." Many Israelis now realize that anything short of eradicating Hamas will signal to Iran and to Hezbollah, its Lebanese proxy, to be even more aggressive against Israel. As Iran approaches nuclear capability, Israel may have to take the fight to the enemy to restore deterrence.
Secular Israelis "do not fully comprehend the determination of focus, the objective of annihilating Israel, and more broadly of genocidal antisemitism [of Islamist organizations and the PA]. But here there's a psychological component that they don't want to believe because it's genocidal. If it's fully acknowledged, just as it was never fully acknowledged around Oslo, if it's fully acknowledged, then one has to acknowledge as well that there's no way to placate it."
Even before Israel was established as the Jewish state, every Palestinian Arab leader from 1929 until today has promoted genocidal antisemitism. Although the non-governmental organization Palestinian Media Watch has been exposing the Palestinian Arab leaders who broadcast, preach, and teach in Palestinian media, mosques, and schools that killing Jews and destroying Israel is an imperative, the Israeli government-controlled media must also call them out at every turn. Failure to do so means "going back to the failures of Oslo" and their disastrous effect on Israel.
Israel's elites turned to the Oslo Accords to avoid a sense of helplessness in a failed attempt to deter the genocidal anti-Semites with money and territory. Following the heady days of the Abraham Accords, and with normalization with Saudi Arabia a likely prospect, Hamas, having built up its capabilities with Iranian support, was poised to launch its long-planned and coordinated October 7 genocidal terror operation against Israeli civilians.
Marilyn Stern is communications coordinator at the Middle East Forum.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I admit to being conflicted.
On the one hand I believe you do not disregard the plight of hostages but you also cannot allow them to dictate your strategy. Why sacrifice the lives of soldiers for 228 hostages whom many may be dead or will become Hamas pawns for the purpose of propaganda?
The millions of homeless Palestinian should be allowed to become Hamas' problem for the time being and Israel should go after Hezbollah now because Iran will eventually release them to attack Israel later. I would also release Mossad and let them take out the Ayatollah's and the IAF should decimate the IRG. If they can accomplish this the Persians would be able to take to the streets and recover their country.
As for Iran's nuclear facilities the IAF should make every effort to destroy them as well.
Yes this would expand the war which will expand anyway but then what do I know.
+++
No comments:
Post a Comment