THE LOGICAL AND REALISTIC OTHER SIDE.....

 

Democrats Aren’t Turning on Israel. They’re Rejecting the Occupation.

This isn’t about Netanyahu or PR - it’s about the reality on the ground.

Jeremy Ben-Ami Apr 19 Following the vote this week by 40 Democratic Senators to disapprove sales of bombs and bulldozers to Israel, I’ve been hearing a lot of anxiety across Jewish America – in chat groups, in the media, in communal conversations – asking a version of the same question: Has the Democratic Party turned anti-Israel? The short answer is no. Democrats refusing to sell bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank isn’t evidence of abandoning Israel or the Jewish people. It’s evidence of something else: a party trying to reconcile its values with the reality of what an American ally is doing – with American support and American weapons - in Gaza and on the West Bank. This isn’t about Israel’s legitimacy. It’s about its policies. And that leads to the next question I keep hearing: will this tension go away when Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer prime minister? Can things just go back to “normal”? Again, no. That hope – that everything can return to a more comfortable “before time” once Netanyahu is gone – was actually at the core of early Biden administration thinking when the Bennett-Lapid government took office in 2021. The assumption was simple: new leadership, more moderate tone, fewer problems. So the strategy became: don’t push too hard. Don’t force big changes. Manage the conflict. We now know where that mindset led. For years, “managing the conflict” meant accepting a reality in which millions of Palestinians live without basic rights, under indefinite military control, with expanding settlements and periodic eruptions of violence. It wasn’t stable or just – it just looked containable for a while. But here’s the problem: a system built on denying another people freedom and self-determination doesn’t produce security. It produces recurring violence – and it leads to growing opposition to Israel, including here in the United States. Saying that doesn’t ignore the other reality: Israel faces real threats. It has enemies. It needs to be strong and able to defend itself. And the senators who cast these votes were clear about that as well – they want to stand with Israel and its people. But they are no longer willing to provide a blank check for permanent occupation. What’s changing – especially among Democrats, but also among Republicans – is a growing recognition that unconditional support for policies that entrench occupation and deny Palestinians basic rights is at odds with both American values and American interests. And there’s another piece of this that often gets missed. Those – like J Street – criticizing Israeli policy aren’t just reacting to what they oppose – they have a vision for what Israel’s future could be. A future where Israel is fully integrated into the Middle East: secure, recognized and normalized not just with a handful of countries, but across the Arab and Muslim world. What we’ve called a “23-state solution” – Israel alongside a sovereign Palestinian state, with normalization across the region. But that future isn’t compatible with permanent occupation. You can’t have both. You can’t deepen normalization while indefinitely denying millions of Palestinians basic rights and a path to self-determination. And that reality won’t change with a new Israeli prime minister. Because the issue isn’t one leader - it’s a system that’s been in place for nearly six decades. I’ve been struck by how many people still believe that once Netanyahu exits, things will reset – that tensions will ease and bipartisan consensus will return. I think that’s a misread. Netanyahu has made things worse. But he didn’t create the underlying reality. The occupation and the inequality that come with it no longer align with the values of a growing share of the Democratic Party – or, frankly, of the American or Jewish public. And as long as that’s true, the political pressure in the United States to do something is only going to grow. Meanwhile, Israel finds itself in a kind of strategic cul-de-sac – stuck in a pattern of recurring wars and ongoing control over another people, without a real political horizon. More force – more raids, more demolitions, more military operations - hasn’t resolved the conflict. It can’t. You can’t bomb or bulldoze your way out of a political problem. Only a political solution – one that ensures rights, freedom, security and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians – can do that. And only that kind of shift can put the U.S.-Israel relationship back on stable, sustainable footing in American politics. So what happened in the Senate this week isn’t Democrats turning on Israel. It’s Democrats refusing to ignore the contradiction between supporting Israel and supporting a permanent occupation. That tension has been building for years. Now it’s out in the open. And it’s not going away with a change in leadership or better messaging. Because this isn’t about Netanyahu. It’s about the occupation – and the growing insistence in American politics that it has to end. J street is a leading American Jewish organization, with different ideas, ideology and opinions than most other similar organization or lobby groups and influential Jewish donors who automatically back any regime in Israel, including the actual one. A courageous and illuminated position from within, I'm copying its president's message, that was received directly by email, for its clear, factual and realistic message, I believe it should seriously be read and considered, and stop the wars, the expansions and annexations of others territories, and transfers and/or genocide of entire populations. As always, my many thanks to all.

A BRIGHT SYRIAN AND SURELY GLOBAL ANALYSIS.......

 
The first thing that must be stated clearly is that Syria’s problem is not just the name of the ruler, but the very structure of power itself. After the fall of Bashar al-Assad, Ahmed al-Sharaa became interim president in January 2025, and then the Constitutional Declaration was issued in March 2025, establishing a five-year transitional period with broad presidential powers, while legislative authority was entrusted to a transitional People’s Assembly until a permanent constitution was adopted and legislative elections were held. This means that the real danger is not just “who occupies the chair,” but that the chair itself remains designed in the old Arab style: a president above the institutions, not a president within the institutions.

The idea that many have overlooked is this: the Arab revolutions repeatedly failed because they toppled the tyrant but not the logic of tyranny. In other words, they demolished the facade but left the psychological and political architecture intact: loyalty before competence, kinship before merit, symbolism before accountability, and slogans before construction. Here, the new ruler becomes merely an updated version of the old disease, even if he comes with a different slogan, different attire, or different religious rhetoric. This is not simply a matter of a "bad person," but rather a matter of a system that punishes independence and rewards obedience. And despotism in the Arab world often returns through the very door the revolution entered: the door of "temporary exception," "a sensitive phase," and "let's not open the door to disagreement now." Then the transition becomes permanent, and the temporary becomes the governing doctrine.

Hence the fundamental critique of the Sharia, not merely as an individual, but as a center of power around which the state is being reshaped. If the transitional phase has effectively begun with a formula granting the president a broad role in shaping the new system, the question is not: Do we trust him? Rather: Why build a system that depends on trust in a man, instead of one that requires institutional discipline? A sound state is not built on the righteousness of the ruler, but on the limitations of his powers. A good man may pass away, he may fall ill, he may become corrupt, he may weaken, and he may be betrayed by those around him. A good institution, however, is what prevents even a good man from becoming a danger. This is the difference between a state and a leader.

Therefore, any serious discussion about Syria must begin with a clear demand: reducing the powers of the transitional presidency, expediting the formation of a genuinely independent legislative authority, and establishing a clear and publicly announced timetable for elections—not vague pronouncements open to extension and interpretation. The current constitutional declaration stipulates a relatively long transitional period and a People's Assembly to temporarily exercise legislative power, but the core of the legitimate political objection is that a prolonged transition with a strong presidency could reproduce the same logic of centralized control, even if the language is different.

The idea that Syria should be governed by a "sheikh" mentality, with bearded men exercising guardianship over people's private lives, is not merely a matter of individual freedoms; it is a matter of a civilizational failure to understand the meaning of the modern state. The modern state does not ask its citizens how to dress, how to practice their religion, or how to reconcile their conscience with God. That is not its function. The state's function is security, justice, property, health, education, infrastructure, and the protection of freedoms within the framework of the law. When preachers infiltrate the structure of power, or when personal morality becomes a political issue, the state begins to disintegrate from within. Because then you are no longer dealing with a public administration, but rather with a moral filtering apparatus that judges people based on appearances, not actions. This is the natural gateway to widespread hypocrisy: everyone feigns virtue, while the state itself is eroding.

Syria has paid a terrible price for nearly a century of coups, party dominance, militarization, Ba'athist rule, and the rule of Hafez al-Assad, father and son. After independence in 1946, the country never settled into a healthy constitutional life. Instead, it quickly descended into a period of military coups in 1949, followed by periods of unity and secession, and conflict between the army and political parties, until the Ba'ath Party seized power in 1963. From 1970 onward, Hafez al-Assad established a security state model embodied in the leader, emptying institutions of their meaning and transforming the army, security forces, and the party into instruments of social control rather than servants of the state. Bashar al-Assad inherited this structure after 2000, and with the 2011 uprising, Syria entered a long and devastating war that ended with his downfall in December 2024 and the rise of the current transitional authority led by Ahmed al-Sharaa. This background is crucial because the most dangerous thing Syria could do today is to move from the cult of personality surrounding Assad to the cult of personality surrounding another version of the political figure.

Here, invoking Winston Churchill becomes a very apt example. Churchill led Britain in World War II and was a true national icon, yet he lost the 1945 election to the Labour Party. The British people didn't say, "He's a war hero, therefore he's above reproach." Instead, they essentially said, "You've played your part in history, and now we want a different order for peacetime and social development." The Labour Party won a resounding majority, 393 seats to the Conservatives' 197. The lesson here is brutal and clear: healthy nations thank their leaders, but they don't grant them perpetual power. Heroism doesn't give them a blank check to rule. Even the man who saved his country from disaster can become unsuitable for the next stage.

Other examples from history can be added: Charles de Gaulle led Free France and later returned under a different constitutional framework, but resigned when he lost the referendum in 1969; George Washington could have established himself as a symbol above the republic, but he voluntarily relinquished power, setting a precedent for its peaceful transfer; Nelson Mandela possessed immense moral legitimacy, but he did not transform it into a permanent right to remain in power. Political greatness is measured not only by what a person achieves, but also by what they refrain from acquiring. These are generally accepted historical examples.

The deeper point here is that personal loyalty is the slow poison of any nation emerging from war. When you appoint an official because they are “loyal to the president,” not because they are capable of managing a ministry, a province, or a security or economic portfolio, you are not building a nation; you are building a protective network around the ruler. These networks may seem effective at first, but they quickly breed corruption, cronyism, and fear of independent talent, and then begin to eliminate anyone who doesn't fall in line. Thus, the state is transformed into a vast fiefdom, not a republican institution.

Therefore, the concept of meritocracy is not a Western luxury, but a prerequisite for Syria's survival. The Syria of the future cannot be governed by the logic of "he's one of us," nor by the logic of "he has a history of fighting," nor by the logic of "he's related to so-and-so," or "he's so-and-so's son-in-law," or "he's so-and-so's brother-in-law." A state emerging from devastation needs the exact opposite: expertise, management, the rule of law, oversight, transparency, separation of powers, and accountability. In the reconstruction phase, appointing an incompetent official becomes a political crime, because the price is paid not only from the treasury, but also from the lives of the people.

Even more dangerous is that when religious discourse becomes intertwined with power, it corrupts both: it corrupts religion by transforming it into a tool of control, and it corrupts the state by turning it into a reflection of the whims of the most powerful religious figure, rather than the principle of citizenship. Syria is not a religious lodge, nor a preaching emirate, nor a morality police force. Syria is a diverse country: Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, Christians, Ismailis, secularists, religious people, tribes, cities, rural areas, displaced persons, and returnees. This complex entity cannot be governed by the mentality of a sheikh who believes that people are a moral herd to be controlled. This is not only backward, but political suicide. Because after all this bloodshed, Syrian society will not easily accept a transition from security-based oppression to moral oppression.

Therefore, serious criticism of the regime must be on this level: not simply that “it’s bad” or “it’s a copy of others,” but rather: if it doesn’t set limits on its own power, it will have reproduced the Syrian problem instead of solving it. And if it doesn’t announce a clear electoral timetable, accept respectable international monitoring, allow for a truly representative national council, and abandon the logic of personal appointments, then any talk of liberation will be incomplete. True liberation is not just about overthrowing the old regime, but about dismantling the notion that Syria needs a new father figure every time.

Received by email from a friend, I don't know who the author is nor his name, but it is indeed a good analysis of the Syrian present situation and some remedies for the political situation, what makes it even more interesting is the fact that it could be addressed to many actual governing entities throughout the world, more so in some supposedly old and established democracies. It is a universal study and analysis indeed, that is worth reading carefully and applied all over or modern political times.

As always, all my thanks to all. 

AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS......

 

By Giorgos Kentas*
The sudden announcement of a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran on April 7, 2026, has temporarily quieted the bombs but also revealed much about how modern republics go to wars, as well as how they choose to pause or stop them. The decision, delivered at the last possible moment and justified as a victory, came like every other major move in this conflict: abrupt, personal, and sealed off from public deliberation. 
The shift from threats of annihilation to calls for peace was not the outcome of national debate or congressional oversight. It was a unilateral calculation, a strategic pivot made by one leader and his advisors, shaped by military reports and political timing. It was, in that sense, the perfect mirror of how the war began. The same process that led to escalation also produced de-escalation: decisions born in the shadows, justified in public only after they were irrevocable. 
From the earliest strikes to the latest ceasefire, the pattern has been unmistakable. A small network at the top controls the narrative, the intelligence, and the pace. Experts who questioned the plan were sidelined; the public, for all its opposition, remained a distant spectator. Yet these moves were presented as the will of a ‘democratic nation’; a paradox that grows harder to ignore each time policy shifts without consent or explanation. 
The comparison between war and peace within this framework is revealing. Both are acts of controlled perception. The war was propelled by confidence in precision warfare and moral certainty; the ceasefire is packaged as strategic triumph and moral restraint. In both cases, the logic belongs to an elite stratum, an elected and or unelected oligarchy , that manages outcomes while insulating itself from accountability. The people who bear the risks and pay the price, remain absent from the calculus. 
What is at stake now is more than the success or failure of a ceasefire. It is the question of how a  republic, a modern democracy, can repeatedly cross the threshold of war and back without a genuine national conversation. The liberal ideal assumes that public scrutiny tempers the impulse to fight; in practice, authority operates through closed councils and instantaneous decrees. The façade holds — elections occur, speeches are made — but the core decisions are oligarchic in nature, taken by the few who possess information and command force. 
The war in Iran, even paused, has already exposed this structural truth. The sudden calm is not the climax of democratic wisdom but the result of political necessity. With markets rattled, allies uneasy, and domestic discontent mounting, retreat was recast as resolution. The ceasefire was declared, like every major action in this conflict, as though the nation itself had spoken, when in truth, the nation had merely been told. 
In the language of power, this is how democracies deceive themselves. The rhetoric of consent persists, but the practice of governance shifts toward concentration and secrecy. When the decisions to bomb and to cease bombing come from the same solitary voice, it becomes clear that what the system enacts is not collective reason but managed obedience. 
The two-week pause may hold or it may not. But either way, it leaves behind a sobering lesson: in the modern liberal order, the war is no longer the exceptional act that democracies’ lexicon restrains. It is the routine act that the polity explains after the fact, and now, even peace follows the same script. 
*Associate Professor in Politics and Governance, University of Nicosia, Cyprus.
kentas.g@unic.ac.cy

Got this article by email from a good friend, as part of a Cypriot site with different articles and news, and I found this one very factual and to the point by this sharp professor, depicting a modern ugly situation culminating in a very destructive war that endanger world stability. 

 My many thanks to all. 

EVEN NOW, SOMETHING GOOD IS TAKING ROOT.

At Easter, Christians speak of resurrection—of life emerging where it seemed impossible.

But even beyond faith, this season invites all of us to recognize something deeply human:

that even in the darkest moments, people continue to choose life, to build, to stand for one another.

And this year, the darkness is real. In Haiti, communities are facing violence and profound uncertainty. Families are grieving. Entire neighborhoods are living with fear.

And beyond Haiti, our world is marked by conflict and suffering that can feel relentless and without end.

It would be easy to believe that hope must wait. But at the University of Fondwa, hope is not waiting. It is being built—every day.

It is in a young woman studying agronomy so farmers can grow food in a changing climate.

It is in a future veterinarian learning how to protect the livestock that sustain rural families.

It is in classrooms where students are preparing not to leave their communities behind, but to strengthen them.

This is what resurrection looks like here—not as an idea, but as action.

And you are part of it. Yes you in Palestine, you in Lebanon, you in Iran and you in Ukraine, and yes you in Sudan, Yemen, Latin America and Cuba..... (Italics are mine.)

Not as someone standing at a distance, but as someone helping to make sure these students can continue. Helping turn uncertainty into possibility. Helping ensure that talent, determination, and purpose are not lost to circumstances beyond their control.

Right now, there are students ready to continue their studies—young leaders whose path forward is made possible, step by step, through the community that stands with them.

Easter reminds us that the story is not finished.

That what looks like an ending can become a beginning. That what feels fragile can still be strengthened. That even in a world marked by suffering, people—together—can choose to build something different.

Thank you for being part of that choice.

Thank you for standing with these students, with this university, and with a vision of Haiti rooted in dignity, knowledge, and possibility.

May this season bring you a sense of renewal—whatever that means in your own life—and a quiet confidence that even now, something good is taking root.

With gratitude and hope,

Father Joseph's signature

Father Joseph B. Philippe, CSSp

Inspiring words from Father Philippe, of course originally addressed to His university students, faculty and staff, and probably to his constituency as well as to the suffering people of Haiti, the italic one extra line includes other suffering people world wide are mine, turning his words as hope for all oppressed and living under occupation and brutal ethnic cleansing, bombardment and annihilation, unfortunately most if not all emanating from the same sources, nuclear armed fascists. But as we're living the spirit of Easter, the message gives us some hope. 

As always, my deep gratitude to all.   

A FAIR AND FACTUAL DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT.......

 

Unprecedented testimony from an Israeli analyst: No Islamic military power like Iran has emerged since the armies of the Prophet Muhammad left the Arabian Peninsula and changed the world. Any force that enters Tehran by land will be buried there.

"Since the armies of the Prophet Muhammad left the Arabian Peninsula and changed the world, no Islamic military power has emerged like Iran… This statement did not come from an Islamic preacher, a sheikh, an Arab analyst, or an Iranian media figure… This is a very striking statement from the Israeli writer and political analyst Alon Mizrahi."

Mizrahi completely deviated from the usual narrative, saying the opposite of everything being said in the Western media, and clearly reiterated that what is happening now is a "historic moment" that no one expected.
He said all this after witnessing the performance of prayers in the underground Iranian missile cities.

Unprecedented admission from within Israel

Mizrahi stated explicitly that the world is witnessing extraordinary military power, and that Iran has been able to do what no one else has been able to do before, and he went so far as to compare it to the Islamic power in its early days, when it emerged from the Arabian Peninsula and changed the balance of power in the entire world.

This in itself is shocking… because the words are coming from inside Israel, not from outside!

Iran's strikes changed the game and cost America trillions of dollars.

According to his analysis, Iran carried out precise and wide-ranging strikes on American and Israeli bases, which led to the destruction of massive military installations that had been built over decades and cost trillions of dollars.

He explains that in just 4 days, there was massive and widespread destruction of some of the most important military bases in the Gulf, such as those in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to the point that a large part of the American military spending disappeared in moments.

- Destroying billions of dollars worth of equipment in seconds

The biggest surprise, from Alon Mizrahi’s point of view, was in the details… radars costing hundreds of millions being destroyed in seconds, entire bases being evacuated, burned and destroyed, and scenes unprecedented even in the history of modern warfare.

Mizrahi says that America itself has never seen destruction like this before, and can only compare it to "Pearl Harbor," but even that was a single attack, not a continuous war like this.

The impossibility of invasion

Mizrahi asserted that the idea of ​​invading Iran is almost impossible, due to its vast size and decades-long military preparedness, and stated clearly that any ground forces entering Iran would be "completely swallowed up".

Underground military infrastructure

One of the most important strengths he mentioned is that the Iranian military infrastructure is not exposed, but is located underground in scattered locations, and this makes access to it almost impossible even for the strongest armies.

Did they lose the war?

The biggest shock was in Alon Mizrahi's final conclusion regarding what
He said that the United States and Israel had already lost the war, and that they might cause destruction, but they would not be able to actually win.

As received, in Arabic, this would be the second time I forward through our blog words of Alon Mizrahi, a bright analyzer and political reporter,(the first on Oct. 2024) I'm surprised the Israeli system allows him to speak freely, while they sensor and stop every other reporter saying anything against the official thinking, or even taking pictures, that's of course when they don't eliminate them. of course we're trying to do the same here nowadays in the US as well.  

As always, my many thanks to all.