Watch Video: Herzliya Policy Conference on Israel's National Policy - Featuring Bolton & Podhoretz

The Herzliya Conference, hosted by the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, has become Israel's center stage for the articulation of national policy by its most prominent leaders.

To watch the 2008 Herzliya Conference live and online click here
To browse the conference schedule click here
To read transcripts of the speeches click here
To view bios of the conference speakers click here (Hat tip: Israel eNews.com)

Regarding the Israel Air Force's Syrian nuclear weapons raid, US Ambassador John Bolton said: "The daring and successful Israeli military strike… has obvious significance for the potential of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. I think, given the debacle caused by our National Intelligence Estimate, that it's close to zero likelihood that President Bush will authorize use of military force against Iran's program before he leaves office, absent some dramatic new development."

He concluded: "Certainly in Teheran you can bet that they took careful notice of what the Israeli Defence Force did. Penetrating Russian supplied radars very similar to the air defenses that Teheran has; using techniques that could be very useful for a long range strike against Iran; this is the kind of operation that the Iranians needIran may be leading in points but the final whistle is still far ahead. to continue to worry about. Because I think with the collapse of American policy, the Israeli strike against the Syrian / North Korea facility is the harbinger of what may be – absent regime change in Teheran – the last resort… Unless you are prepared to see Iran proceed unmolested toward a nuclear weapons capability, which this NIE has given them free rein to do in my judgment, you are coming very close to a decision point in this country of whether you will use military force to stop Iran."

He believes that North Korea is assisting 2 members of the US' list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in nuclear weapons development, Iran and Syria, which the US State Department wishes to keep hidden to protect the failure of their treaty agreement which removed North Korea from the Terror Sponsors list.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz hinted Tuesday that the probability of an Israeli military strike against Iran has increased given "the deterioration of efforts to stop Iran diplomatically."

"The diplomatic timetable is running short and thus the next two years are critical for stopping Iran through diplomatic means."

Mofaz, who also served as defense minister as well as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, was quoted in Ha'Aretz newspaper as saying, "Reality is complex but the picture is very clear: Iran may be leading in points but the final whistle is still far ahead… It is clear that the current trend must be reversed; and all the means are justified. This is a historical time… This time, no leader will be able to say 'we didn't know, we didn't understand the importance of this time.' The world must do everything that is necessary in order to assure a future of peace and prosperity for the next generations as well."

Cal Thomas: Selling out Israel on the installment plan

Name one concession Israel has made in recent years that has been reciprocated by its sworn enemies. This is not a trick question. There are none.

That's why November's announced "Middle East Summit" in Annapolis, Md., should be viewed as one more installment payment in the sellout of Israel and of American interests in the Middle East. While the United States continues to struggle to shore up democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration - like administrations before it - proceeds in undermining the likelihood that the region's first democracy will endure.

At every negotiating session, Israel is pressured into making concessions for "peace" and receives more war in response. Mostly this is because of the wishful thinking in the West that has replaced sound policy. Why should the Palestinians make concessions when they are drawing closer to their objective of eradicating Israel by throwing stones and bombs and stonewalling negotiations? ...

According to one report, "the drafters are planning to call for a withdrawal by Israel to the 1967 lines," thus making Israel more vulnerable than ever to heavily armed Arab states and Palestinian enemies and leaving it completely exposed to infiltration from the East. Does anyone doubt such infiltration would not occur? Would the United States come to the aid of Israel should it again be invaded? Probably not since that might hurt our "image" in the Arab world.

Infidel Israelis, Americans and Europeans will not dissuade those sworn to destroy Israel. President Bush had promised former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon he could expect U.S. support to maintain defensible borders. In the plan now being discussed, Israel's borders would be indefensible.

In all of this, the United States is trying to prop up Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But Abbas is a figurehead, manipulated by the terrorist organization Hamas, which virtually controls the Palestinian territories thanks to democratic elections. Caroline Glick writes in the Jerusalem Post: "Over the past week, Abbas announced his adherence to maximal Palestinian demands from Israel. These include the full transfer of sovereignty over the Temple Mount to the Palestinians; the complete surrender of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians; and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called 'right-of-return' that would force Israel to accept millions of foreign Arabs as immigrants within its truncated borders."

Why should anyone expect anything else when the real intensions of Israel's enemies can be summed up in the "phased plan" for the destruction of Israel expressed in 2000 by Palestinian Minister of Supply, Abd El Aziz Shahian: "The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land . . . for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution."

The "'65 Revolution" refers to the founding of the PLO and the publication of the Palestinian Charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel through armed struggle.

So, why is the United States hosting this sellout in Annapolis?