Another Round of Fruitless Negotiations?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry this Sunday, June 26, in Rome to discuss ways to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.  Reports say that Netanyahu will tell Kerry that he backs potential Egyptian-led efforts to revive negotiations, rather than the international approach being pushed by France.

 

In the current political season going on here, in Europe and all year round in Israel, one of the favorite issues raised by candidates trying to flaunt their "international" creds is the so called "Middle East Peace Process. It's really a no-brainer politically, because the general assumption is that in Western democracies most people prefer peace to war, and believe (completely erroneously!) that the Israeli-Palestinian problem is the root cause of all regional conflicts.

 

Those who don't understand the dynamics naively believe that a "two state" resolution is the magic bullet that will instantly stop all the conflicts. If only "they" could sit down and negotiate in good faith then everything else will work out...

 

However after five wars, years of terrorist attacks, months of failed negotiations, numerous broken promises, repeated land concessions by Israel and plenty of blame to go around, there are two schools of thought on how to bring that about.

 

First some definitions:  The political terms "left" and "right" used here are the Israeli definitions, and refer to Ideological and political views on the best way to assure Israel's security and long-term survival: "Right" is more conservative (hawkish), while "Left" is more liberal (dovish).

 

In both cases I'm talking about normative Israelis and Americans, who support Israel and the Zionist dream and understand the need for an eventual resolution to the conflict, but have different opinions as to how to make it happen. Note - in both cases I'm NOT talking about the extreme, sometimes violent fringes of both camps.

1. On the "Right" - mainly secular and religious conservatives who feel that Israel should maintain a tough, non-compromising negotiating posture leading to perpetual Israeli sovereignty over most of the areas of Judea and Samaria, while establishing a less-than-fully sovereign Palestinian nation-state that includes the Gaza Strip, is demilitarized and formally recognizes the Jewish State of Israel.  
2. On the "Left" - secular and traditional liberals who prefer compromise driven negotiations that would essentially return most of the West Bank to the PLO with Israel maintaining permanent security control over the Jordan Valley and certain other small areas crucial to Israel's ongoing and evolving security needs. Israel will also maintain most of the established Israeli communities ("settlements") that are built within the four small "Consensus Blocs", in exchange for agreed land swaps of equal area. Here, too, the ultimate goal is a demilitarized Palestinian nation-state that recognizes Israel as the historical and current sovereign Jewish homeland. 

Israelis tend to wander between the camps, but most are not fully committed to either. They will lean one way or the other at any given time, based on either perceived threats, like war or terrorism, on the one hand...or real movement towards peace on the other.

 

The government of the day has a major influence on national "leaning". But since the government is elected by the voters, we have an interesting "chicken or egg" question...or do we?

 

The fact that in recent elections Olmert, Sharon or Netanyahu were able to cobble together right-of-center coalitions has less to do with general sentiments among Israeli voters, who are basically centrist, and more do with the fact that the traditional centrist parties keep breaking up and reinventing themselves with no coherent or unified platform or legacy leadership.

 

On the other hand the Likud party, with few changes, has anchored the right wing of Israeli politics since 1973.

 

Today, Netanyahu heads a solid coalition of Likud and like-minded coalition partners. Therefore, any proposals that Secretary of State Kerry will present on Sunday will be negotiated from Israel's "right-of-Center" philosophy regarding security and boundaries.

 

Together with the current Palestinian leadership vacuum and ongoing rejectionist statements, I feel pretty safe in predicting that this will just be another round of fruitless negotiations

Why I'm giving Lieberman the benefit of the doubt - for now

When the announcement came out last week that Lt. Gen. (res.) Moshe Ya'alon had resigned from his political positions as Israel's minister of defense, and member of Knesset from the Likud party, no-one was really surprised. His relations with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu had been bumpy from the beginning. Ya'alon, a decorated combat officer who rose to the highest rank possible in the IDF and finished his career as its Commander in Chief, had a hard time taking orders from a career politician whose service in the IDF in an elite unit, was respectable, if unremarkable.

Bibi, on the other hand, didn't appreciate the perceived patronizing by his higher ranking, more experienced and sometimes a bit too outspoken, subordinate.

The final straw came last month over two comments  Ya'alon made. Bibi essentially gave him the option to resign or be fired. He "resigned". That was not surprising.

What raised eyebrows, rolled eyes and sent pundits everywhere (except in Israel) into hi-caffeinated hand-wringing angst, was the offer of the job to Corporal (res.) Avigdor Lieberman.

The Israelis knew that Bibi had no choice. I'll try to explain:

In the US, the executive and legislature branches at all levels: federal, state and local, draw their power and authority from the voting public directly. In Israel the executive branch (Primer Minister, ministers, etc.) is installed and empowered by the Knesset, both individually and collectively.

The Israeli system of government is a parliamentary democracy, based on "proportionate representation". Voters for the Knesset cast ballots for a party - not an individual candidate. The parties are competing for the 120 seats in the Knesset.

After an election, all valid votes are counted and the Knesset seats are allocated proportionately to the number of votes each party received. If party A received 30% of the votes - it will get 30% of the 120 seats = 36 seats or Members of Knesset (MK's). Once allocated, the new MK's are sworn in.

In order to form or maintain a government, a party must receive a vote of confidence from at least half of the sitting MK's+1 = 61. Anything less and the government will not be confirmed or will fall in a future "no confidence" vote.

Since no party in Israel's 68 years of history has ever received 61 seats in an election, every Prime Minister candidate has had to cobble together a coalition of several parties, and for the next few years try to keep everyone in their coalition happy...

After the last election Bibi formed a coalition with a razor thin majority of 61. Ya'alon's resignation of his Knesset seat left the coalition under the threat of losing a no-confidence vote at any time. Bibi had to act fast to stay in power:

First he tried (not too hard...!) to get the center-left "Zionist Union" party (24 MK's), led by Yitzchak ("Bujy") Hertzog, but that fell through.

Since the "Joint List" Arab party (13 MK's) is not really an option, Bibi turned to the party that has always been his ideological and political "plan B" (or maybe it was really "Plan A" all along...?), Avigdor Lieberman's right-wing nationalistic "Yisrael Beiteinu".With six MK's - it pretty much solidifies the government's continuation. Lieberman demanded and received the Ministry of Defense.

The new coalition agreement was ratified by the Knesset, and Lieberman was sworn in.

Understandably, not everyone in Israel is happy, but aside from those few perennial declarers who say (again) that they are "packing their bags", everyone understands that this is the cost of Israel's style of democracy.

As for Lieberman as Defense Minister, I'm taking a wait and see position. Though he may not have been my first choice to replace Ya'alon, he might just turn out to be the right person at the right time. I disagree with those that are arguing that the position should be held by someone from within the IDF.

Due to the importance of the defense portfolio, prime ministers have often held the DM position in addition to their prime ministerial duties... seven of the sixteen Defense Ministers to date were serving Prime Ministers: David Ben Gurion, Levi Eshkol, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Bibi (two days...).

Five of them (Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Shaul Mofaz and Moshe Ya'alon) were former IDF Chiefs of Staff. Most of them were either civilians or served at low ranks See the list below.*

Anyone familiar with the last 68 years knows that Israel has had excellent Defense Ministers who had no IDF experience at all: Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Arens, Peres, Begin, and civilian ones those were not that great: Lavon and Peretz for example.

And even among those who had IDF experience, some were great, some were good, and at least one made a terrible decisionthat cost Israel over 9000 casualties, of which 2,656 were IDF killed.

Like I said - I'm taking a wait and see position on Lieberman as Defense Minister.

* Here is the list of Past Defense Ministers and whether or not they served in the IDF:

Order	Minister
1	David Ben-Gurion	civilian
2	Pinhas Lavon	civilian
-	David Ben-Gurion	civilian
3	Levi Eshkol	civilian
4	Moshe Dayan	IDF (General)
5	Shimon Peres	Civilian
6	Ezer Weizman	IDF (General)
7	Menachem Begin	Civilian
8	Ariel Sharon	IDF (General)
-	Menachem Begin	Civilian
9	Moshe Arens	Civilian
10	Yitzhak Rabin	IDF (General)
-	Moshe Arens	Civilian
-	Yitzhak Rabin	IDF (General)
-	Shimon Peres	Civilian
11	Yitzhak Mordechai	IDF (General)
-	Moshe Arens	Civilian
12	Ehud Barak	IDF (General)
13	Binyamin Ben-Eliezer	IDF (General)
14	Shaul Mofaz	IDF (General)
15	Amir Peretz	IDF (Captain)
-	Ehud Barak	IDF (General)
16	Moshe Ya'alon	IDF (General)
-	Benjamin Netanyahu	IDF (Captain)
17	Avigdor Lieberman	IDF (Corporal)

After One Hundred Years - the Tragic Consequences of "Sykes-Picot"

Exactly one hundred years ago this week, on May 16, 1916, an agreement was signed between Great Britain and France. Known as the "Sykes-Picot Agreement", it completely changed the Middle East and is the main cause of today's wars and conflicts in the region.

 

Negotiated by the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot and officially titled the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret pact between Great Britain and France (with the agreement of the Russian Empire), defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East after the expected defeat of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

 

Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River (Israel), Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France was allocated control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The "controlling powers" were free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. Further negotiation would determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.

 

With the Turkish defeat in 1918 and subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the agreement effectively divided the Ottoman's Arab provinces outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence.

 

Though an "international administration" was proposed for Palestine, Britain gained control of the territory in 1920 from the League of Nations and ruled it as "Mandatory Palestine" from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled "Mandatory Iraq" from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946.

 

The Agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western-Arab relations. By creating new artificial "nation states" out of racially, religiously and culturally diverse - and often hostile - populations, "Sykes-Picot" sowed the seeds of all the current regional conflicts.

 

It also established a universal Arab opposition to the existence of the future State of Israel by negating British promises made to the Arabs by Col. TE Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") for a national Arab homeland under "King" Hussein bin Ali (great grandfather of Jordan's King Abdulla ll) in the area of "Greater Syria", in exchange for their fighting with the British forces against the Ottoman Empire.

 

More than any other event in modern history this agreement shaped the Middle East as we know it. It is also one of the main reasons for every one of the Middle East wars raging today in the region.

 

In general, the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes-Picot Agreement disappeared with the declared establishment of the "Islamic State" in July 2014 and with it the relative protection that religious and ethnic minorities enjoyed in the Middle East. It is the reason for the disintegration of Syria, Iraq, Libya and Tunisia (all artificially created "states"), and the resulting flow of persecuted ethnic and religious refugees.

 

ISIS - The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (Levant) makes it crystal clear when it claims that one of the goals of its insurgency is to "reverse the effects of the Sykes-Picot Agreement".

 

There are those in the Middle East who argue that without the Sykes-Picot agreement there would never have been a British Mandate for Palestine, therefore no "partition" and no Israel 68 years ago.

 

I strongly disagree with that argument for one simple reason - the Zionist Movement started in Basle, Switzerland in 1897, nineteen years before "Sykes-Picot". The rebirth of the State of Israel was already in motion, the pioneers were already settling the land...and the 2000 year-old dream of our forefathers would be realized..."Sykes Picot" or not.

The World is Neither Better Nor Safer

As we enter the last eight and a half months of the current administration, White House officials and surrogates are in full-spin mode to convince opinion makers (the media), historians, and the American and International public, that U.S. policy and actions over the past seven plus years have made the world better:

• "We're fortunate to be living in the most peaceful era in human history", President Obama said in Germany on April 25th, just  before announcing that he was sending 250 more American special operations forces troops to Syria.
• "The world is safer today", Secretary of State John Kerry said in January after Iran Nuke deal was announced.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with both the President and the Secretary of State.

Historians agree that the most peaceful era in recorded human history was the 200 years between 27 BCE (the reign   of Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus) and 180 CE...the period of the global "Pax Romana".

Augustus, otherwise known as Octavian (great-nephew of Julius Caesar) set in motion a new foreign policy for Rome. Up till then Rome had been focused on expanding the empire as much as possible. Augustus advocated a shift toward prosperity and pacification, within the borders of the empire.

Ceremonies such as closing the "Gates of Janus" signaled the achievement of world peace, and demonstrated the growing importance of a peaceful existence in the Roman Empire.

The Pax Romana ended abruptly in the year 180, when emperor Marcus Aurelius died and the throne passed to his son Commodus (portrayed by the actor Joaquin Phoenix in the 2000 movie "Gladiator"). Commodus didn't share all of his father's ideals and philosophies, so the emphasis on peace went out the window.

Maybe what President Obama meant to say is that this era is at least "as peaceful" as during the Pax Romana...

Let's see:

• In the Ukraine, Russian backed rebels continue to fight the US backed government  
• The fighting in Syria rages on. The casualties, according to the Syrian Centre for Policy Research (February 2016 report) are over 470,000 dead and over 1.9 million wounded. 4.6 million Syrians are refugees, and 6.6 million are displaced within Syria; half are children. US and Russia brokered cease fire negotiations that started in Geneva last month have broken down, with John Kerry admitting on Monday that: "Syria's civil war is in many ways out of control".
• The Civil War in Yemen between Saudi led Sunni forces and Iranian backed Shiite tribes continues unabated, with civilian casualties mounting.
• The war against ISIS and Al-Qaeda has only caused both to surge in popularity, manpower, money, cyber capabilities and sophisticated weapons, while they increasingly launch, or attempt to launch terror attacks around the world.
• Tension between mortal enemies Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran has increased exponentially since the Saudis executed a popular Shiite cleric in January. With diplomatic ties cut and growing threatening (and insulting) rhetoric, many analysts believe that war could break out...and could include nuclear weapons.

And that brings me to Secretary Kerry's disingenuous claim about the world being "safer" after the bad and unenforceable Iran Nuke deal.

Here are just a few official statements made shortly after the sanctions were lifted following a report by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) that the US, and only the US, accepted as a pretext to declare Iran "compliant" with the deal and immediately lift most of the sanctions:

• An Iranian nuclear official confirmed Tehran has not halted progress on the nuclear program, which would advance "vigorously," state-run IRNA reported.
• Yukiya Amano, the director general of the IAEA, revealed that Iran did not answer all questions about the possible military dimensions (PMD) of its past nuclear work. This is the actual bomb hardware making and testing part of the program. This issue had dominated IAEA meetings, contributed to U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iran and was a major condition for releasing the sanctions. Amano made clear that his report left the question unresolved.
• The report "wasn't black and white," Amano told reporters outside a meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board. Suggesting some questions remain unanswered, he described his report as a "jigsaw puzzle" for which his agency only has "pieces."
• In a statement to the IAEA's board of governors about the report, Amano said, "we are not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."
• Iran has not come clean about its nuclear weapons program. Not that anyone seriously thought it would.
• Amano did not sign off on the report, but neither did he oppose it. He just put it out there.
• After the report came out the U.S. State Department suddenly said that the terms of the nuclear agreement were "non-binding" on Iran. Say what??!?
• And in a clever move Iran defined anyone pointing out that it's not in compliance with the deal as a "violator" of the deal, giving Iran an excuse to pull out. The Iranians knew from the negotiations that Obama needed this deal more than they did, and that he'll pressure anyone, from the IAEA to Democratic senators, to make it happen and stick, no matter what Iran does.
• While Amano keeps warning that Iran has not come clean about its weapons program, the U.S. narrative is that it doesn't matter because our intelligence is so great that we know all about it anyway. So I guess the next step will be "who even needs inspections". Our intelligence is so great...

Back to the Saudi-Iranian war build-up:      

The assumption in the Middle East is that thanks to the ill-advised "deal" Iran is still exactly the same 4-6 weeks from building a bomb or two that it was 18 months ago (unless it has already "broken out"...).

Another widely held belief is that Saudi Arabia is already in possession of 2-4 nuclear warheads, purchased from the only Sunni country that has a known supply, Pakistan.

So Mr. Kerry - do you still believe that the world is "safer" after the Iran nuke deal?

And Mr. President - do you really want us to believe that we are in "the most peaceful era in human history"?

To paraphrase the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen in his debate with Dan Quale: I've studied Pax Romana, I understand Pax Romana, and this era is no "Pax Romana" - not even close.

After U.S. actions and policies over the past seven years, both domestic and international, I believe that the world today is neither better, nor safer.

The Huge Significance of Two Small Red Sea Islands

Last week the Egyptian government announced that it was handing over sovereignty of two small, uninhabited islands in the Red Sea, Tiran and Snafir, to Saudi Arabia, and is planning, together with the Saudis, to build a bridge between the two countries.

 

In exchange, according to the reports, the kingdom and Saudi firms are expected, among other things to:

• Invest over $20 billion in Egypt.
• Provide about $1.5 billion for developing northern Sinai.
• Fund the causeway connecting Sharm el-Sheikh and Saudi Arabia,
• Supply Egypt’s energy needs with a long-term loan with 2 percent interest.

 Since the 1800s, these islands have changed ownership several times, leaving the current status in a bit of a grey area.

 

In 1950, the Saudi government handed over both islands to Egypt because at the time Egypt had the military capability to “protect” them from Israel.

 

Both islands, at the mouth of the Gulf of Elat Aqaba have a combined area of only 44 square miles and are 5 miles from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Both islands are arid and uncultivated with yet unexplored possible natural resources.

 

The big significance Tiran has is its strategic position - it forms the narrowest section of the Straits of Tiran, which is the only passage from the ports of Elat in Israel, and Aqaba in Jordan to the Indian Ocean and South Asian Markets.

 

This strategic significance played a disastrous role for Egypt when on May 22, 1967 president Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the blockade of the Straits of Tiran.

 

Perceiving this as an act of war; Israel launched attacks on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, starting the Six Day War. This led to the loss of Arab land to Israel and the death of some 20,000 Arab soldiers.

 

Egypt regained the Sinai Peninsula, including the two Islands, after the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

Tiran is included as part of the 1979 “Camp David” peace treaty, signed in Washington by Egypt and Israel that guarantees freedom of Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran.

 

Both islands are uninhabited and only Tiran has a handful of international peace keeping troops, mostly American and Egyptian soldiers. Many beaches on Tiran are mined.

 

The Saudi government now has to agree to abide by the same Camp David Accords with regards to guaranteeing safe passage for Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran.

 

Egypt, it seems, made an excellent deal: It receives an outstanding economic lifeline in exchange for territories that it probably does not technically own.

 

Israel was told in advance about the Saudi - Egyptian deal, and gave its approval, sort of. Israel’s concerns are mainly the fact that the current instability in the Saudi kingdom could lead to an overthrow of the somewhat fragile regime and the establishment of a hostile government (to both Israel and the US) of either radical Islamist extremists like ISIS, or a pro-Iran group. Either way would create the risk of the Straits of Tiran being again blocked to Israeli commercial and military shipping.

 

Another concern is the planned bridge or causeway. Obviously it would be highly beneficial to the Egyptians and Saudis, but what threats will it pose down the road, to Israeli, Jordanian and American ships sailing beneath it?

 

All told, if the various agreements stand the test of time, at least at the moment it looks like a good deal. If nothing else, it brings together the interests, and reinforces relations, between the four moderate, anti-Iran and anti-Islamic terrorism powers in the Middle East: Egypt, Saudi Arabia (assuming the new 9/11 disclosures don’t shake the boat too much...), Jordan and Israel.

 

And that makes Tiran and Snafir hugely significant.

Good News From Israel

Several readers have emailed me asking why my columns always deal with the more serious aspects of news from the Middle East. Well, that’s because I usually analyze the day to day current events in Israel and the region, and how they impact the U.S. in general, and U.S. – Israel relations in particular.

But I have been neglecting the positive, uplifting and world-changing news that comes out of Israel every day.

So this week’s column is dedicated exclusively to good news and developments from Israel.

These recent articles come from two resources: israel21c.org and nocamels.com, where you can find more about these inventions, together with a wealth of information on how Israel is constantly making the world better, safer and healthier.

1.   Novel wound clot bandages can stop severe bleeding within minutes.

Developed by nano-materials specialist Dr. Shani Eliyahu-Gross of Core Scientific Creations, WoundClot is composed of a highly absorbent gauze made from regenerated cellulose (what plant cell walls are made of). When applied to a wound, this single-use, sterile bandage turns into a gel-state membrane, forming a stable membrane with the platelets (clotting blood cells) from the wound. By enhancing the natural process of coagulation, WoundClot stops hemorrhaging within minutes. Perhaps more importantly, the membrane lasts up for up to 24 hours. (nocamels.com)

2.   Israeli Tech Puts 3D Holographic Heart In The Doctor’s Hand To Save Lives

Real View has developed what is probably the most advanced 3D interactive visualization system. Their holographic system allows physicians to work with the patient’s true 3D anatomy appearing as precise volumetric holograms floating in mid-air.  (nocamels.com)

3.   China signs 5-year agreement with Galilee institute

The Galilee International Management Institute has signed a five-year cooperation agreement with the Chinese government on innovations in agriculture. The Institute offers advanced seminars to professionals from over 170 transitional and industrialized countries, in an attempt to promote cooperation on global and regional levels.   Over the last 10 years, the Galilee International Management Institute (GIMI) has trained over 900 Chinese officials.  The new agreements call for GIMI to train approximately 130 Chinese — mainly in the fields of agriculture, water management and technological innovation — each year for the five years. (israel21c.org)

4.   A single blood test could detect multiple diseases

An Israeli-led international team of researchers has proof of concept for a single blood test that can detect multiple conditions, including diabetes, cancer, traumatic injury and neurodegeneration, in a highly sensitive and specific manner.

The novel method, tested on 320 patients and control groups, zeroes in on patterns of circulating DNA that is released by dying cells and traces it to specific types of tissue. (israel21c.org)

5.   California to grow rice sustainably with Israeli water-tech

The first sustainable farming initiative leveraging Israel’s pioneering research and innovation in water technology will begin this spring at Conaway Ranch in Woodland, California. The goal of the novel project is to reduce the vast amount of water ordinarily used in growing rice.

“We couldn’t ask for better partners: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev’s Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research and Netafim USA, the world’s leading drip-irrigation manufacturer, both of which have experience growing rice in arid regions,” said Kyriakos Tsakopoulos, president and CEO of Conaway Preservation Group, owner of the 17,000-acre Conaway Ranch in north-central California, upon announcing the project at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. on March 20, adding: “This effort could serve as a model for other farms and potentially save hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water in California if widely adopted”. (Israel21c.org)

6.   Breakthrough Blood Test For Alzheimer’s Disease To Undergo Clinical Trials

In order to accurately diagnose Alzheimer’s disease, medical professionals must conduct a long series of tests to assess a patient’s memory impairment, cognitive skills, functional abilities, and behavioral changes. The process also includes costly brain imagining scans and, in some cases, invasive cerebral spinal fluid tests to rule out other diseases.

Now, a new discovery by a team of Israeli and American researchers seeks to effectively screen and diagnose Alzheimer’s using a blood test. The new study, published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, proposes a new biomarker for cognitive aging and Alzheimer’s disease: The activity-dependent neuro-protective protein (ADNP), whose levels can be easily monitored in routine blood tests. The study also found that higher ADNP levels tested in the blood correlate with higher IQ in healthy older adults. The researchers now plan to move forward into clinical trials in order to create a pre-Alzheimer’s test that will help to tailor potential preventative treatments (nocamels.com).

And these are just a few examples.

 It’s important to always remember that with all the bad news that comes out of that region, Israel is fulfilling its destiny as not only the Jewish Nation State and homeland, but as a constant light to all the nations of the world.

There is always good news from Israel, and I promise to emphasize it more.