Wednesday, October 9, 2019


Don’t let the lack of any formal Israeli response to US President Donald Trump’s dramatic reversal of policy and decision to remove US troops from northern Syria fool you: Jerusalem is deeply, deeply concerned about this step.

Not because it will suddenly impact Israel’s ability to take action in Syria when it desires to halt Iranian attempts to entrench itself there – though it could make that marginally more difficult – but because it drives home the idea that Israel really can only rely on itself.

Trump’s decision – a reversal of last year’s reversal of an announcement to withdraw US troops from Syria – cannot be seen as an isolated decision. It must also be seen within the context of the Iranian-backed attacks last month on the Saudi oil facilities, and the deafening lack of an American response.

Both these incidents show that the present administration is little different from the previous Obama administration in its unwillingness to stand up and confront where necessary the negative forces in the Middle East – and this is something that has enormous significance for Israel.

What this is driving home to the country’s strategic planners is that while the US under a very friendly administration will support Israel at the United Nations; while it will offer assistance with aid for weapons; and while it will give it moral backing and defend it against international pressure – when it comes to the use of force, Israel must be willing and ready to defend itself, by itself.
Ironically, Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds comes just a month after he mentioned the possibility of signing some kind of a mutual defense pact with Israel.

1 comment :

  1. Sorry I didn’t read the post. See
    May I show here my Petition for a Rehearing before Yom Kippur?
    Questions Presented
    The NYS Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court, and the Brooklyn Supreme Court accepted as valid a fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation to justify the QDRO awarding Respondent 55% of Petitioner's pension in violation of ERISA and the 2013 NYS civil divorce awarding Respondent the marital home despite the Israel divorce 1993. Myla Serlin, Respondent's lawyer, submitted to Judge Prus the phony/fake 1995 Rigler Order of Separation August 1, 2013 and never to Petitioner. The questions presented are: Are the NYS Court of Appeals' rulings consistent with the NYS constitutional requirement to articulate statewide principles of law in the context of deciding particular lawsuits.? Can the NYS courts brush aside all efforts for Petitioner to get a copy of the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation?
    Opinions Below
    State of New York Court of Appeals Decided and Entered on the twelfth day of September, 2019 Present, Hon. Janet DiFiore, Chief Judge, presiding. Mo.\ No.\ 2019-649 Susan Aranoff, Respondent, v. Gerald Aranoff, Appellant. Appellant having moved for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in the above cause; Upon the papers filed and due deliberation, it is ORDERED, that the motion is dismissed as untimely see Rules of Ct of Appeals 22 NYCRR \S 500.24b. John P. Asiello Clerk of the Court See Appendix A: New York State Court of Appeals Decision September 12, 2019.
    Statement of the Case
    8.The late disgraced Judge Gerald Garson fined me $5,000 on December 12, 2001. On November 14, 2001 Susan didn't show up for a hearing and called in and asked for a month's delay. On December 12, 2001 Gerald Garson threw Ian Anderson, my long time lawyer, out of the room and made him afraid to represent me and fined me $5,000---all for no good reason. Judge Michael Ambrosio ruled, years later after evidence emerged of the crimes of Gerald Garson, for no good reason, that I must pay all $25,000 fines against me before he'll allow a re-opening of my case!
    9.I was only a few days beyond the 30 days limit of Rules of Ct of Appeals 22 NYCRR \S 500.24b, yet the NYS Court of Appeals ruled that I was untimely---most unfair. They at first assigned me a number Mo. No. 2019--649 though I was a few days beyond the 30 day limit. I requested a short time extension that I'm in Israel, an old man, pro se, and the issue is judicial fraud. 22 NYCRR \S 500.24b states: Timeliness. Movant shall serve the notice of motion not later than 30 days after the appeal, certified question or motion sought to be reargued has been decided, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. I understood that the Court permitted my slight delay over the 30 days. I suspect that Court of Appeals is not being fully honest with me.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.