There is indeed a rising politician in Israel who understands the uselessness of "land for peace" deals: Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Jewish Leadership faction of the Likud party. He is running for chairman of the party against Netanyahu in a primary election scheduled for January 31st. Learn more at mflikud-dot-com.

Gerson makes some classic errors here. What he omits is the Jihadist concept of Taqqiya - deception - which permits falsely swearing oaths if it will serve the expansion of sharia, even in the long run. He also obfuscates violence with Jihad. Jihad takes many forms - just look at the Muslim Brotherhood's activities for evidence of this - and some forms of jihad are taylor made specifically to "destroy oour miserable house by ou own hands" to paraphrase the Ikhwan. Suggested reading for Gerson: "The Grand Jihad" by Andrew McCarthy.

Freidman writes: "Israel’s bet has three possible outcomes. One is to hold the current position and be constantly manipulated into actions that isolate Israel. The second is to accept the concept of the 1967 borders and bet on the Palestinians rejecting it as they did with Bill Clinton. The third outcome, a dangerous one, is for the Palestinians to accept the deal and then double-cross the Israelis. But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders." He has incorrectly determined that Fatah will accept a "Two State Solution." Abbas has said that all of Arafat's policies are his policies. IOW, the "phased plan" for Israel's destruction is Fatah's plan. The only real difference between Fatah and Hamas...

If Friedman thinks that a stronger Fatah will bring peace to Arabs and Israelis, it is Friedman who suffers from "wishful thinking." Friedman does have a good point about the need for Israel to be more self-sufficient, militarily. At least some diversification would be a good idea. Prior to 1967, Israel did rely heavily on France, but also developed military hardware sources in other countries, to provide some protection from the situation Israel now faces with America. That there are many strings attached to American aid should be obvious. Both political strings (the "peace process") and military strings are attached. Prior to 1967, Israel had its own fighter-jet, designed and built in Israel by Israel Aircraft Industries. ...

1. World currencies are NOT fungible. Fungible implies that one may be substituted for the other with no practical differences. This ignores relative price fluctuations among currencies. Since Shedlock bases much of his arguement on the fungibility of currencies, his case is severely flawed. 2. "The US has the largest gold reserves of any country" Perhaps. But since we have not had our reserves audited in decades, we are taking at their word the statements that people with a conflict of interest are making. In other words, it is in the interest of the Federal Reserve that we do indeed own as much gold as they say we do. Without an independent audit, how can Shedlock be so sure? And even if it were true, does he deny that...

"...the British had been doing a characteristically admirable British job of looking after a foreign territory..." If Murchison is going to write about Israel, he should first do his homework. Had he done so, he would never have made this statement. Mr. Murchison, and others looking to learn how things came to be where they are in Israel today, should read the excellent book by Samuel Katz, "Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine". Although a bit dated, it provides an excellent background for those who truly wish to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict. The British Mandatory government was hardly "admirable" in its handling of Muslims and Jews under their rule. ...

The second part of this piece is more or less spot on in terms of the threat we face. However, Chapin's remedies are highly unrealistic. His bullet points do not take into account the delicate relationship between Islamic authorities and the few pro-Western Arab leaders that remain (note that he does not name any - they are hard to identify these days). For example, the House of Saud rules Saudi Arabia only because of a 250 year old agreement that stipulates Wahhabi Islam as the only permitted form of religion within the borders of the kingdom. Were the Saudi royals to close midrassas and end support for Al Qaida abroad, that would swiftly bring the end of Saudi rule, and the takeover by Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia. And no Arab...

Feulner's not really helping. Terrorism is NOT the enemy. Terrorism is a TACTIC. MUSLIMS who employ terrorism are the enemy. How can we possibly defeat an enemy we cannot even name?

What a moron. Most of the Islamic terrorists that have either attacked or planned attacks on Americans are well educated and from middle class or affluent homes. Jobs and business opportunities are seen as nothing more than a way to fund Jihad against the non-Muslim world. Our economic assistance to Muslim countries is seen as a weakness and a form of submission (Jizya tax payments) by the recipients. Our advisors are seen as an unwanted intervention at worst, or used to acquire skills with which to eventually fight America at best. Oh, we need a bigger military, alright, but without the will to use it to crush those who call for our destruction, our military is just a joke, as it is seen now by most of the world, including the...

OMG! This was wonderful. The only thing missing, the elephant in the room, actually, is Israel's equivalent to the TEA Party and to Palin: The Jewish Leadership (Manhigut Yehudit) faction of Likud and it's leader, Moshe Feiglin. For reasons I have never understood, Glick is rabidly opposed to Feiglin, despite the fact that she agrees with him on nearly every political issue!