And G-d said to Moses, 'Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him: Thus says G-d, the G-d of the Hebrews: Let My people go, that they may serve Me. (From this week's Torah portion, Va'eirah, Exodus 9:13)
"So that they may serve Me." This small phrase turns all the modern significance that we would like to attach to the story of the Exodus on its head. On the surface, the story is made for Hollywood (and it was!): It has the good guys and the bad guys. It has Moses, the underdog leader fighting for justice who defeats Pharaoh, the strong and evil king. The good guys win, the bad guys lose, the good guys live happily ever after, the bad guys drown in the sea, justice has been done, happy end.
There is just one small problem. That is not what is written. We were not redeemed from Egypt so that we could live happily ever after. We were redeemed from Egypt to serve the King of the world. Were it not for that fact, we would have remained there.
The famous verse from this week's Torah portion, "Let my people go" became the slogan of the struggle for Soviet Jewry trapped behind the Iron Curtain. It was a great struggle to be in; the Soviet Union was the bitter enemy of the United States and what could be nicer than fighting against the evil empire and dovetailing with the ethical and enlightened Western world?
The problem is that while we adopted the values of the US, the "good empire", we omitted the all-important phrase, "So that they may serve Me." All that we remembered was "Let my people go." Let my people go for the sake of freedom, for the sake of democracy, for the sake of Zionism, for the sake of the values of the Western world. Let my people go to the Pax Americana of which Israel is part.
But we - and the Americans - are in the process of collapse because we have forgotten that our purpose is to serve G-d.
We have lost our sense of justice for our existence and as a result, arrest warrants are already waiting for our elected government officials if they dare venture into Europe's capitals. In a sense, they are right. We did not leave Egypt to enjoy the desert climate and we did not establish the State of Israel because the world lacks democracies. Without the "serving G-d" factor, there is no significance to the Return to Zion - it only creates friction in the world. As far as the nations are concerned, if we do not carry the message that the world has been waiting for, we are extraneous - even a nuisance.
The Americans had a president who looked for meaning. He was inspired by the good Jew who helped to open the Iron Curtain. "Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, is always at my bedside," said President Bush. And so, the American Nation followed Sharansky's message. But unfortunately, Sharansky's book did not include the connection between liberty and the service of G-d. The attempt to force democracy upon Iraq failed, naturally and the defeat of America was remolded into the image of Obama.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
An Alternative to a 'Palestinian State': By Moshe Feiglin
21 Tevet 5770
Jan. 7, '10
At a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I was asked about my alternative to a 'Palestinian State'. The solution that I propose, promotion of Arab emigration, is predicated on the following points:
A. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish Nation.
B. There is no "Palestinian nation" and aspirations for a "Palestinian State" are strictly for Arab propaganda purposes. The Arabs of Israel and their terror organizations are being offered a state on a silver platter - something that has never happened to any other group in history. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly rejected this gift. The reason that they reject this more-than-generous offer is because their real and exclusive goal is not Arab sovereignty, but the destruction of Jewish sovereignty. Thus, any plan that relies on a third side, and particularly on the good will and cooperation of the Arab countries, is unrealistic.
C. The solution for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be based on the facts on the ground and not on the fantasies of Oslo.
There are three facts on the ground that support this position:
1. The Arabs want to leave. Time and again, polls of the Arab public - including polls carried out by Arab institutions - show that a large majority of the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is interested in finding a better future elsewhere
2. Many Western countries and Arab emirates are interested in Arab immigrants from Israel. Quite a few Western countries have negative population growth (less than two children per family) and need immigrants to help sustain their economies. The question is not who will build the skyscrapers in Montreal, but whether they will be built by a Sudanese immigrant whose only construction experience is with mud huts, or by an immigrant from Ramallah, who has lived alongside a modern, Western culture for the past forty years and who has experience with building skyscrapers.
3. We have all the money necessary to promote this process. Israel spends approximately 150 billion dollars per decade -10% of its
budget - on the Oslo vision of partitioning the Land. The price will continue to inflate as the relatively less expensive separation fence is replaced with ballistic missile batteries to defend our cities from flying pipes and as Israel's towns dig themselves underground in self defense. Exchanging this defensive paradigm for the emigration proposal would release approximately one quarter of a million dollars to be allotted to every Arab family that would emigrate from Israel.
After the lecture, I discovered that Professor Martin Sherman has written a position paper with the same conclusions as mine, complete with very similar numbers. Click here for his detailed description.
The above proposal would solve Israel's local security problems, save it billions, give the Arabs mired in the "Palestinian struggle" a new lease on life and provide some Western countries with much-needed working hands. Do we dare to emerge from our Oslo box and implement it?
Jan. 7, '10
At a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I was asked about my alternative to a 'Palestinian State'. The solution that I propose, promotion of Arab emigration, is predicated on the following points:
A. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish Nation.
B. There is no "Palestinian nation" and aspirations for a "Palestinian State" are strictly for Arab propaganda purposes. The Arabs of Israel and their terror organizations are being offered a state on a silver platter - something that has never happened to any other group in history. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly rejected this gift. The reason that they reject this more-than-generous offer is because their real and exclusive goal is not Arab sovereignty, but the destruction of Jewish sovereignty. Thus, any plan that relies on a third side, and particularly on the good will and cooperation of the Arab countries, is unrealistic.
C. The solution for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be based on the facts on the ground and not on the fantasies of Oslo.
There are three facts on the ground that support this position:
1. The Arabs want to leave. Time and again, polls of the Arab public - including polls carried out by Arab institutions - show that a large majority of the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is interested in finding a better future elsewhere
2. Many Western countries and Arab emirates are interested in Arab immigrants from Israel. Quite a few Western countries have negative population growth (less than two children per family) and need immigrants to help sustain their economies. The question is not who will build the skyscrapers in Montreal, but whether they will be built by a Sudanese immigrant whose only construction experience is with mud huts, or by an immigrant from Ramallah, who has lived alongside a modern, Western culture for the past forty years and who has experience with building skyscrapers.
3. We have all the money necessary to promote this process. Israel spends approximately 150 billion dollars per decade -10% of its
budget - on the Oslo vision of partitioning the Land. The price will continue to inflate as the relatively less expensive separation fence is replaced with ballistic missile batteries to defend our cities from flying pipes and as Israel's towns dig themselves underground in self defense. Exchanging this defensive paradigm for the emigration proposal would release approximately one quarter of a million dollars to be allotted to every Arab family that would emigrate from Israel.
After the lecture, I discovered that Professor Martin Sherman has written a position paper with the same conclusions as mine, complete with very similar numbers. Click here for his detailed description.
The above proposal would solve Israel's local security problems, save it billions, give the Arabs mired in the "Palestinian struggle" a new lease on life and provide some Western countries with much-needed working hands. Do we dare to emerge from our Oslo box and implement it?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
US Loan Guarantees Cost US Nothing - Yet Cost Israel Her Sovereignty
January 12, 2010...
American Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell stated last week that if Israel doesn't advance the peace process, "[the United States] can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel". Manhigut Yehudit applauds Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz for telling Mitchell that "We don't have to use those guarantees; we are doing very well without them" and Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sar for stating that "We will act in accordance with our own interests and not in accordance with external pressures."
Though US Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman sought to minimize the threat, Mitchell's statement sheds light on years of attempted American blackmail by which the United States placed financial pressure on Israel to gain the Jewish state’s surrender to and continuation of the ongoing false peace process.
In conjunction with the loan guarantees are the roughly 2.7 billion dollars that Israel receives annually from the United States. Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction of the ruling Likud party, has been clear for years regarding US aid - that all US aid to Israel should be ended. The loan guarantees and the financial aid have come at a high price to Israel. By following this fraudulent Oslo “peace” process, Israel has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 10,000 maimed at the hands of her so-called Arab “peace partner”.
Moreover, since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 (by which Israel willingly offered to give away the Land where 93% of the places mentioned in the Jewish Bible are located), an ever increasing portion of world opinion (including Jewish opinion) questions whether justice is on Israel's side. This "peace process" has therefore had a deleterious effect vis-à-vis anti-Semitism as well as strengthening terrorism and eroding Israel's military security.
American aid to Israel comes at a heavy price with onerous strings attached. Seventy-five percent of all monies must be spent in the US thus making it a make-work program for America’s defense industry. These conditions have cost Israel 100,000 manufacturing jobs and Israel has been prevented from using its technology for the development of its own economy. The ending of American aid would solve Israel’s unemployment crisis and free Israel to reap a tremendous profit in arms sales that would more than offset any benefits of American largesse. Currently, Israel upgrades virtually all of the military equipment that it receives from the US and yet the American companies own the technology and are the only ones able to profit. Former Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs Ron Dermer publicly confirmed these assertions at the 2006 AIPAC Conference in response to a question from Manhigut Yehudit’s US Director, Rob Muchnick.
Israeli leaders typically state that they must continue the Oslo Process or else the financial spigot from the US will be shut, even though they know that the premise is false. As a case in point, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated in 2005 that if Israel did not implement the “Disengagement from Gaza”, the United States would make Israel “do something worse”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued this trend by freezing Jewish construction in all parts of the Land of Israel liberated from the Arabs in 1967. When asked at the aforementioned AIPAC conference for his opinion as to why Israel continues to take American aid, Dermer - now a senior advisor to Netanyahu - responded that this "was a political decision made by each Prime Minister".
Manhigut Yehudit does not blame America for attempting to co-opt Israel. The Jewish state must stand on its own feet and be led only by its devotion to its heritage, its Land, and its Creator.
This duplicity on the part of Israel’s leaders has caused her to give up her sovereignty to such an extent that many people now simply think of her as nothing more than an extraneous 51st state of America.
Rob Muchnick, US Director
American Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell stated last week that if Israel doesn't advance the peace process, "[the United States] can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel". Manhigut Yehudit applauds Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz for telling Mitchell that "We don't have to use those guarantees; we are doing very well without them" and Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sar for stating that "We will act in accordance with our own interests and not in accordance with external pressures."
Though US Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman sought to minimize the threat, Mitchell's statement sheds light on years of attempted American blackmail by which the United States placed financial pressure on Israel to gain the Jewish state’s surrender to and continuation of the ongoing false peace process.
In conjunction with the loan guarantees are the roughly 2.7 billion dollars that Israel receives annually from the United States. Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction of the ruling Likud party, has been clear for years regarding US aid - that all US aid to Israel should be ended. The loan guarantees and the financial aid have come at a high price to Israel. By following this fraudulent Oslo “peace” process, Israel has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 10,000 maimed at the hands of her so-called Arab “peace partner”.
Moreover, since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 (by which Israel willingly offered to give away the Land where 93% of the places mentioned in the Jewish Bible are located), an ever increasing portion of world opinion (including Jewish opinion) questions whether justice is on Israel's side. This "peace process" has therefore had a deleterious effect vis-à-vis anti-Semitism as well as strengthening terrorism and eroding Israel's military security.
American aid to Israel comes at a heavy price with onerous strings attached. Seventy-five percent of all monies must be spent in the US thus making it a make-work program for America’s defense industry. These conditions have cost Israel 100,000 manufacturing jobs and Israel has been prevented from using its technology for the development of its own economy. The ending of American aid would solve Israel’s unemployment crisis and free Israel to reap a tremendous profit in arms sales that would more than offset any benefits of American largesse. Currently, Israel upgrades virtually all of the military equipment that it receives from the US and yet the American companies own the technology and are the only ones able to profit. Former Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs Ron Dermer publicly confirmed these assertions at the 2006 AIPAC Conference in response to a question from Manhigut Yehudit’s US Director, Rob Muchnick.
Israeli leaders typically state that they must continue the Oslo Process or else the financial spigot from the US will be shut, even though they know that the premise is false. As a case in point, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated in 2005 that if Israel did not implement the “Disengagement from Gaza”, the United States would make Israel “do something worse”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued this trend by freezing Jewish construction in all parts of the Land of Israel liberated from the Arabs in 1967. When asked at the aforementioned AIPAC conference for his opinion as to why Israel continues to take American aid, Dermer - now a senior advisor to Netanyahu - responded that this "was a political decision made by each Prime Minister".
Manhigut Yehudit does not blame America for attempting to co-opt Israel. The Jewish state must stand on its own feet and be led only by its devotion to its heritage, its Land, and its Creator.
This duplicity on the part of Israel’s leaders has caused her to give up her sovereignty to such an extent that many people now simply think of her as nothing more than an extraneous 51st state of America.
Rob Muchnick, US Director
From LBJ to Binyamin Netanyahu* Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Introduction
Israel is losing its protracted war with the Palestinians. It is losing this war for the same yet-to-be-understood reason why America lost its protracted war in Vietnam.
The United States, a superpower, did not lose the war against North Vietnam on the battle field. It did not lose the war because of the antiwar movement generated by America’s liberal-left academia and mass media. In fact, as late as 1968 polls indicated that a majority of the American people supported the war despite the horrendous loss in that year and in the preceding year of more than 1,000 Americans per month!
In his book Dereliction of Duty, military historian H. R. McMaster rightly concludes that the war in Vietnam was lost in Washington, D.C., it was lost even before the first American units were deployed in Vietnam in 1963. The disaster of Vietnam was primarily the result of the failings of President Lyndon Johnson and his principal advisers, above all Robert McNamara. In this article I will speak only of their flawed mentality, leaving aside their “arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and, above all [as McMaster concludes], the[ir] abdication of responsibility to the American people.”
What is especially relevant to Israel, however, is that this flawed mentality of the Johnson administration in the Vietnam War is the key to understanding why Israel, under the Netanyahu government, is losing the war with the Palestinians.
I. Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Vietnam War
Let us go back to November 1963, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He was succeeded, of course by the Vice-President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Upon entering the presidency, Johnson inherited the Vietnam War and its competitor for fiscal appropriations the Great Society Program. If this were not enough, America was also engaged in the policy of “containment” of the Soviet Union, a basic cause of US involvement the civil war between North and South Vietnam. Johnson feared that a takeover of South Vietnam by Russia’s client North Vietnam would be followed by communist subversion of Laos and Cambodia and much more of Southeast Asia. The US-Soviet conflict and Johnson’s commitment to Kennedy’s Great Society Program prompted LBJ to pursue a “guns and butter” foreign policy.
When Kennedy was assassinated, there were 16,000 American military “advisors” in South Vietnam engaged in counterinsurgency operations against the Vietcong, North Vietnam’s proxy. After being sworn in as president, Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963. Step-by-step, the war became Americanized. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam. As mentioned, in 1967 and 1968, Americans were being killed at the rate of over 1,000 a month!
America’s objective in the war was to secure the independence of South Vietnam. It was already evident in 1964, however, that the counterinsurgency against the Vietcong was not succeeding. The Vietcong could not be defeated unless the US made an all out effort to conquer the insurgents’ military and manpower supplier North Vietnam. This was Johnson’s objective. In fact, and contrary to precedent, Johnson and McNamara excluded the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the policy-making meetings of the National Security Council. The war strategy was formulated by civilians, primarily McNamara, whose influence on LJB was decisive. The strategy was known as “graduated pressure” or gradual escalation of US Air Force bombing of North Vietnam’s infrastructure. A word about McNamara is in order.
McNamara had served on the business faculty of Harvard University, where he taught the application of statistical analysis to management problems. When LBJ appointed him Secretary of Defense, McNamara assembled a group of academic and legal minds that regarded war not from a military and ideological perspective but from the perspective of economics and game theory. They attached no great significance to the fact that North Vietnam’s leader, Ho Chi Minh, was educated in Moscow. They assumed that the leaders of North Vietnam were ordinary rational human beings who, like themselves, thought in terms of cost analysis. Thus, if North Vietnam’s infrastructure were subjected to a gradual escalation of air force bombing, sooner or later the resulting losses would convince the communists their efforts to subdue South Vietnam was not cost effective. They would then agree to a negotiated settlement of the conflict. South Vietnam’s independence would then be secured, fulfilling America’s objective in the war.
Stated another way: McNamara acted on the belief that graduated application of military force would eventually lead the Vietnamese communists to a judgment about what is the most reasonable choice to make: either suffer increasing destruction of their country’s infrastructure or negotiate an end of the war. Since McNamara believed North Vietnam would choose the negotiating track, he discarded the traditional military precept of overwhelming force as unnecessary, wasteful, and inefficient.
There was, however, at least one general who spoke out against this war strategy. McMaster quotes a complaint of Lt. General Goodpaster, who protested to McNamara in the Fall of 1964: “Sir, you are trying to program the enemy and that is one thing we must never try to do. We can’t do his thinking for him.” The general’s complaint fell on deaf ears; the cost was horrendous.
As of April 1965, approximately 400 Americans had given their lives in Vietnam. By the end of 1968, some 58,000 Americans had perished while the US persisted in the Johnson-McNamara strategy of gradual escalation! It was left to Johnson’s successor Richard Nixon to extricate the United States from that inferno in 1975—an “exit strategy” followed by the loss of South Vietnam.
But I have yet to reveal the flawed mentality of the Johnson administration. This mentality may be deduced from LBJ’s April 7, 1965 speech at Johns Hopkins University. What is more, Johnson’s speech was based on assumptions about the Communists which are virtually identical to the assumptions about the Palestinians appearing in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s June 14, 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University!
Johnson’s speech was an indication that the United States was overextended, that it was losing the war—a terrible thing to contemplate in the midst of the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Accordingly, while emphasizing his commitment to use military force to preserve the independence of South Vietnam, Johnson held out the promise of a comprehensive economic and public works development program for all of Southeast Asia. He promised North Vietnam a Mekong River development program that would “provide food and water and power on a scale to dwarf even [the Tennessee Valley Authority]” along with “revolutionary advances in medical care, agriculture, and education.”
The present writer, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, was astonished by Johnson’s ethnocentric ignorance or arrogance. Johnson seemed to regard the communist leaders of North Vietnamese as dark skinned, bourgeois Americans. The former majority leader of the Senate thought he was dealing with Democratic and Republican politicians, coaxing them to support a controversial piece of legislation. Like a typical American capitalist, he seemed to believe that Ho Chi Minh could be bought, that Ho would forsake his communist ideology and objectives for pottage. It took less than twenty-four hours for Ho to reject LBJ’s export version of the Great Society. It must be pointed out and emphasized, however, that Johnson had succumbed to the fallacy of “mirror-imaging”—of thinking the enemy thought and felt as he did. This fallacy, to which egalitarian democracies are prone, spawned McNamara’s ideologically indifferent strategy of graduated pressure and thus led to America’s disastrous defeat in the Vietnam War.
II. Conclusion: Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli-Palestinian War
The same fallacy of mirror-imaging, the same ethno-centric arrogance or condescension, is also evident in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “economic” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War. Like other bourgeois politicians, Netanyahu thinks he can buy peace from the Palestinians by an economic development program that will prompt these Muslim Arabs to abandon their bellicose Quran for the pottage of peace and commodious living.
Like other politicians steeped in McNamara’s economic or non-ideological mode of thought, Netanyahu’s proposed economic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War is based on the demonstrably false idea that economics trumps ideology, including religion. I see here not only a superficial but also a defeatist mentality. Indeed, this mentality, which pervades Netanyahu’s government and prompts him to endorse an Arab–Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, signifies that Israel is losing the war with the Palestinians, just as America, under the same mentality of the Johnson administration, lost the war with the communists of North Vietnam.
__________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 11, 2010.
Israel is losing its protracted war with the Palestinians. It is losing this war for the same yet-to-be-understood reason why America lost its protracted war in Vietnam.
The United States, a superpower, did not lose the war against North Vietnam on the battle field. It did not lose the war because of the antiwar movement generated by America’s liberal-left academia and mass media. In fact, as late as 1968 polls indicated that a majority of the American people supported the war despite the horrendous loss in that year and in the preceding year of more than 1,000 Americans per month!
In his book Dereliction of Duty, military historian H. R. McMaster rightly concludes that the war in Vietnam was lost in Washington, D.C., it was lost even before the first American units were deployed in Vietnam in 1963. The disaster of Vietnam was primarily the result of the failings of President Lyndon Johnson and his principal advisers, above all Robert McNamara. In this article I will speak only of their flawed mentality, leaving aside their “arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and, above all [as McMaster concludes], the[ir] abdication of responsibility to the American people.”
What is especially relevant to Israel, however, is that this flawed mentality of the Johnson administration in the Vietnam War is the key to understanding why Israel, under the Netanyahu government, is losing the war with the Palestinians.
I. Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Vietnam War
Let us go back to November 1963, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He was succeeded, of course by the Vice-President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Upon entering the presidency, Johnson inherited the Vietnam War and its competitor for fiscal appropriations the Great Society Program. If this were not enough, America was also engaged in the policy of “containment” of the Soviet Union, a basic cause of US involvement the civil war between North and South Vietnam. Johnson feared that a takeover of South Vietnam by Russia’s client North Vietnam would be followed by communist subversion of Laos and Cambodia and much more of Southeast Asia. The US-Soviet conflict and Johnson’s commitment to Kennedy’s Great Society Program prompted LBJ to pursue a “guns and butter” foreign policy.
When Kennedy was assassinated, there were 16,000 American military “advisors” in South Vietnam engaged in counterinsurgency operations against the Vietcong, North Vietnam’s proxy. After being sworn in as president, Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963. Step-by-step, the war became Americanized. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam. As mentioned, in 1967 and 1968, Americans were being killed at the rate of over 1,000 a month!
America’s objective in the war was to secure the independence of South Vietnam. It was already evident in 1964, however, that the counterinsurgency against the Vietcong was not succeeding. The Vietcong could not be defeated unless the US made an all out effort to conquer the insurgents’ military and manpower supplier North Vietnam. This was Johnson’s objective. In fact, and contrary to precedent, Johnson and McNamara excluded the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the policy-making meetings of the National Security Council. The war strategy was formulated by civilians, primarily McNamara, whose influence on LJB was decisive. The strategy was known as “graduated pressure” or gradual escalation of US Air Force bombing of North Vietnam’s infrastructure. A word about McNamara is in order.
McNamara had served on the business faculty of Harvard University, where he taught the application of statistical analysis to management problems. When LBJ appointed him Secretary of Defense, McNamara assembled a group of academic and legal minds that regarded war not from a military and ideological perspective but from the perspective of economics and game theory. They attached no great significance to the fact that North Vietnam’s leader, Ho Chi Minh, was educated in Moscow. They assumed that the leaders of North Vietnam were ordinary rational human beings who, like themselves, thought in terms of cost analysis. Thus, if North Vietnam’s infrastructure were subjected to a gradual escalation of air force bombing, sooner or later the resulting losses would convince the communists their efforts to subdue South Vietnam was not cost effective. They would then agree to a negotiated settlement of the conflict. South Vietnam’s independence would then be secured, fulfilling America’s objective in the war.
Stated another way: McNamara acted on the belief that graduated application of military force would eventually lead the Vietnamese communists to a judgment about what is the most reasonable choice to make: either suffer increasing destruction of their country’s infrastructure or negotiate an end of the war. Since McNamara believed North Vietnam would choose the negotiating track, he discarded the traditional military precept of overwhelming force as unnecessary, wasteful, and inefficient.
There was, however, at least one general who spoke out against this war strategy. McMaster quotes a complaint of Lt. General Goodpaster, who protested to McNamara in the Fall of 1964: “Sir, you are trying to program the enemy and that is one thing we must never try to do. We can’t do his thinking for him.” The general’s complaint fell on deaf ears; the cost was horrendous.
As of April 1965, approximately 400 Americans had given their lives in Vietnam. By the end of 1968, some 58,000 Americans had perished while the US persisted in the Johnson-McNamara strategy of gradual escalation! It was left to Johnson’s successor Richard Nixon to extricate the United States from that inferno in 1975—an “exit strategy” followed by the loss of South Vietnam.
But I have yet to reveal the flawed mentality of the Johnson administration. This mentality may be deduced from LBJ’s April 7, 1965 speech at Johns Hopkins University. What is more, Johnson’s speech was based on assumptions about the Communists which are virtually identical to the assumptions about the Palestinians appearing in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s June 14, 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University!
Johnson’s speech was an indication that the United States was overextended, that it was losing the war—a terrible thing to contemplate in the midst of the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Accordingly, while emphasizing his commitment to use military force to preserve the independence of South Vietnam, Johnson held out the promise of a comprehensive economic and public works development program for all of Southeast Asia. He promised North Vietnam a Mekong River development program that would “provide food and water and power on a scale to dwarf even [the Tennessee Valley Authority]” along with “revolutionary advances in medical care, agriculture, and education.”
The present writer, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, was astonished by Johnson’s ethnocentric ignorance or arrogance. Johnson seemed to regard the communist leaders of North Vietnamese as dark skinned, bourgeois Americans. The former majority leader of the Senate thought he was dealing with Democratic and Republican politicians, coaxing them to support a controversial piece of legislation. Like a typical American capitalist, he seemed to believe that Ho Chi Minh could be bought, that Ho would forsake his communist ideology and objectives for pottage. It took less than twenty-four hours for Ho to reject LBJ’s export version of the Great Society. It must be pointed out and emphasized, however, that Johnson had succumbed to the fallacy of “mirror-imaging”—of thinking the enemy thought and felt as he did. This fallacy, to which egalitarian democracies are prone, spawned McNamara’s ideologically indifferent strategy of graduated pressure and thus led to America’s disastrous defeat in the Vietnam War.
II. Conclusion: Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli-Palestinian War
The same fallacy of mirror-imaging, the same ethno-centric arrogance or condescension, is also evident in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “economic” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War. Like other bourgeois politicians, Netanyahu thinks he can buy peace from the Palestinians by an economic development program that will prompt these Muslim Arabs to abandon their bellicose Quran for the pottage of peace and commodious living.
Like other politicians steeped in McNamara’s economic or non-ideological mode of thought, Netanyahu’s proposed economic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War is based on the demonstrably false idea that economics trumps ideology, including religion. I see here not only a superficial but also a defeatist mentality. Indeed, this mentality, which pervades Netanyahu’s government and prompts him to endorse an Arab–Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, signifies that Israel is losing the war with the Palestinians, just as America, under the same mentality of the Johnson administration, lost the war with the communists of North Vietnam.
__________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 11, 2010.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Sun is Shining Over Israel By Naomi Ragen
As brutal winter storms paralyze Europe and America, the sun is shining all
over Israel. The unseasonable warmth has us hiking through the green hills
without sweaters, basking in the glorious light and warmth. This, after a
good many downpours that helped replenish our parched water resources. As
reported by year's end summaries, this past year saw suicide bombings in
Israel reduced to zero, thanks to the wall our enemies are so determined to
break down. Our economy seems to have weathered beautifully the tragic
economic downturns everywhere else, and our housing market continues to
flourish. New immigrants and tourists are up. And a whooping ten thousand
yordim returned home, finding that the greener pastures they were seeking
were in their own backyards after all.
Challenges, of course, still abound: The rights of women continue to be
violated, the most obvious examples in the "mehadrin" bus lines, where last
week The Jerusalem Post reported that a 60 year- old grandmother in Safad,
who refused to give in to the demands of an 18 year- old yeshiva boy to move
to the back of the bus, wound up forced to mace him. Of course, the police
arrested her. Then Anat Hoffman, who leads the Women of the Wall, whose
"crime" was to have a women's minyan at the Kotel, was also arrested and
fingerprinted for "defiance." (Can there really be such a law?)
Children too, continue to be the victims of senseless violent crimes. A
haredi father threw his wife and four year-old out of the house, locked the
door and smashed his eight month old against the floor, killing her. A
haredi father who shook his baby to death because her crying was disturbing
his 'rest' (and whose arrest caused riots in Jerusalem) appealed his
manslaughter sentence and lost.
In shul, I looked down into the men's section from my seat in the women's
balcony, watching a tall young father place a baby girl on his lap,
carefully straightening her dress, and offering her a bottle. I watched a
father caress the back of his small son's head.
We look forward to an even better year.
over Israel. The unseasonable warmth has us hiking through the green hills
without sweaters, basking in the glorious light and warmth. This, after a
good many downpours that helped replenish our parched water resources. As
reported by year's end summaries, this past year saw suicide bombings in
Israel reduced to zero, thanks to the wall our enemies are so determined to
break down. Our economy seems to have weathered beautifully the tragic
economic downturns everywhere else, and our housing market continues to
flourish. New immigrants and tourists are up. And a whooping ten thousand
yordim returned home, finding that the greener pastures they were seeking
were in their own backyards after all.
Challenges, of course, still abound: The rights of women continue to be
violated, the most obvious examples in the "mehadrin" bus lines, where last
week The Jerusalem Post reported that a 60 year- old grandmother in Safad,
who refused to give in to the demands of an 18 year- old yeshiva boy to move
to the back of the bus, wound up forced to mace him. Of course, the police
arrested her. Then Anat Hoffman, who leads the Women of the Wall, whose
"crime" was to have a women's minyan at the Kotel, was also arrested and
fingerprinted for "defiance." (Can there really be such a law?)
Children too, continue to be the victims of senseless violent crimes. A
haredi father threw his wife and four year-old out of the house, locked the
door and smashed his eight month old against the floor, killing her. A
haredi father who shook his baby to death because her crying was disturbing
his 'rest' (and whose arrest caused riots in Jerusalem) appealed his
manslaughter sentence and lost.
In shul, I looked down into the men's section from my seat in the women's
balcony, watching a tall young father place a baby girl on his lap,
carefully straightening her dress, and offering her a bottle. I watched a
father caress the back of his small son's head.
We look forward to an even better year.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Arabs Slowly but Steadily Reveal The True Agenda
The Kach Party of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane HY”D was outlawed in Israel, and one may or may not have agreed with the late MKs views, but it is becoming increasingly evident that much of what he preached is proving correct, and unfortunately, his less than optimistic prediction regarding Israel’s Arab citizens are also playing out in a number of areas.
YWN-Israel reported that Arab MK Jamal Zahalka was expelled from the Erev Chadash Israel TV news magazine program after shouting Ehud Barak enjoys listening to classical music and killing the children of Gaza. Veteran journalist and Erev Chadash host for the past 27 years Dan Margalit expelled the Arab MK, requesting that he leave the studio.
As the exchange of words between Margalit and Zahalka became increasingly vocal, the Arab MK as he was leaving the station lost his cool, insisting nothing can change the fact that the “blood of the Palestinian children cries from the ground” due to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, rejecting any attempt by Margalit to place the blame on Hamas and over 8,000 rockets fired by the terrorist regime during the past years.
While off stage but still in the studio, and his voice heard, the Arab MK shouted “Tel Aviv is Sheikh Munis”, making reference to the former Arab village in the northern Tel Aviv area, the very same area on which the Erev Chadash studio is situated. R’ Kahane warned years ago that the battle is not over Yehuda and Shomron, but once the so-called loyal Israeli Arabs realize they are winning the battle, they will move ahead towards conquering the entire package, demanding Tel Aviv and Haifa, insisting they were ousted from their homes in 1948, seeking the total dismantling of the State of Israel. Ironically, the rabbi was shunned when he shouted a blue Israeli identity card, teudat zehut, will not buy the loyalty of Arab citizens, and their singing of the “Yearning of being a free people on our land” as is stated in the Hatikvah national anthem is nothing short of absurd.
When Margalit accused him of seeking to conquer this too, he replied, “No! I was born here. You are the immigrant”, again in line with the philosophy that Israel has ousted him and others from their homes and all or much of the State of Israel is “occupied”.
The Movement for Quality Government on Sunday joined the voices calling on the state attorney general to investigate the Arab MKs remarks, which at the very least may be a violation of the law prohibiting incitement.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
YWN-Israel reported that Arab MK Jamal Zahalka was expelled from the Erev Chadash Israel TV news magazine program after shouting Ehud Barak enjoys listening to classical music and killing the children of Gaza. Veteran journalist and Erev Chadash host for the past 27 years Dan Margalit expelled the Arab MK, requesting that he leave the studio.
As the exchange of words between Margalit and Zahalka became increasingly vocal, the Arab MK as he was leaving the station lost his cool, insisting nothing can change the fact that the “blood of the Palestinian children cries from the ground” due to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, rejecting any attempt by Margalit to place the blame on Hamas and over 8,000 rockets fired by the terrorist regime during the past years.
While off stage but still in the studio, and his voice heard, the Arab MK shouted “Tel Aviv is Sheikh Munis”, making reference to the former Arab village in the northern Tel Aviv area, the very same area on which the Erev Chadash studio is situated. R’ Kahane warned years ago that the battle is not over Yehuda and Shomron, but once the so-called loyal Israeli Arabs realize they are winning the battle, they will move ahead towards conquering the entire package, demanding Tel Aviv and Haifa, insisting they were ousted from their homes in 1948, seeking the total dismantling of the State of Israel. Ironically, the rabbi was shunned when he shouted a blue Israeli identity card, teudat zehut, will not buy the loyalty of Arab citizens, and their singing of the “Yearning of being a free people on our land” as is stated in the Hatikvah national anthem is nothing short of absurd.
When Margalit accused him of seeking to conquer this too, he replied, “No! I was born here. You are the immigrant”, again in line with the philosophy that Israel has ousted him and others from their homes and all or much of the State of Israel is “occupied”.
The Movement for Quality Government on Sunday joined the voices calling on the state attorney general to investigate the Arab MKs remarks, which at the very least may be a violation of the law prohibiting incitement.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
A Realistic Assessment and a Fantasy for the New Year* - Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
What is to be done about Iran?—
(1) its development of nuclear weapons;
(2) its potential control of Persian Gulf oil on which the world’s economy depends;
(3) its regional power via proxies and alliances;
(4) its global Islamic ambitions;
(5) its imminent threat to Israel’s existence.
While appeasement is entrenched in Washington, defeatism holds sway in Jerusalem, where the Netanyahu government has endorsed a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland.
Consider some simple facts. Estimates of the number of Muslims worldwide that support Jihad vary from 15 to 50 percent (and higher). Given 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth, this means that between 225 and 750 million Muslims have been conditioned by the Quran, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah” (Sura 9:111). It’s hardly reassuring to say “not all Muslims are terrorists.”
The prospects are worse than you have been told. Even if most Muslims were “moderates,” virtually all harbor the ethos of Islam. Hence the vast majority of Muslims are at hand to be recruited by “extremists” So what is to be done?
As long as the White House is occupied by Barack Obama, who bowed to Saudi King Abdullah, and purrs to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—the two principal patrons of Jihad—no serious policy will be taken by the United States to put an end to Islam’s threat to the free world. This was the paramount failing of the Bush administration.
Can it be that only Israel stands between civilization and barbarism, as Israel did almost 2,000 years ago when it planted the seed of Christianity in pagan Rome?
Today Europe, the home of Christianity, is dying of neo-paganism. Having replaced the God of Israel, the creator of life, Europe is succumbing to the Islamic god of death. Is this Europe’s punishment for the death camps of the Holocaust?
All talk of fostering a moderate Islam is spineless obfuscation of Islam’s essence: necrophilia. Islam’s religious nihilism is more deeply engrained in Muslims than Nazism was engrained in Germans. Mein Kampf is tepid compared to Islam’s turgid hatred of “infidels.” Some 56 states exalt of the Quran, which Winston Churchill called “the Mein Kampf of war.” Germany under Hitler did not use German children as human bombs. And unlike, Ahmadinejad, the sadistic beasts of Nazi Germany did not use thousands of German children to walk through enemy mine fields. The fools in Washington and Jerusalem have learned nothing from the enormity of evil manifested in the Nazi Holocaust; that evil now manifested in Islamic chants: “Death to America!”—“Death to Israel!”
The cult of hatred and death is everywhere. Can anything be done to save civilization? Here let me mention a proposal I published after 9/11—when George W. Bush was President, a proposal rendered obsolete by the election of Obama. Since Islam is not localized in a single nation state:
The President, I suggested, should call in all Muslim ambassadors. He should warn them—for starters—that the US will submit a resolution in the UN General Assembly stipulating that all Islamic states have 30 days to renounce militant Jihad, a doctrine that violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Failure to do so will result in expulsion from the UN.
Of course this proposal was not realistic. It’s not realistic to educate the American people about the nature of the enemy that destroyed the World Trade Center and almost 3,000 innocent human beings. Realism has taken a vacation from Washington.
President Bush did not tell the American people that 9/11 was nothing less than an Islamic declaration of war on the United States, evidence of which goes back to November 1979, when Iranian militants stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took some seventy Americans captive for 444 days. Nor did he mention the Islamic bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or the Islamic bombing of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Nor did he mention the Islamic attack on the USS Destroyer Cole that killed 17 American sailors in 2000.
These were acts of war, ignored as such by a decayed American government more concerned about Arab oil than American blood. The deadly significance of the 9/11 has yet to be grasped. This direct attack on the American homeland was cheered by the Islamic street. This worldwide Islamic hatred of America should be related to research conducted by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which concluded that Muslims have slaughtered some 270 million Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims since Muhammad added the veneer of monotheism to paganism. The unvarnished truth obscured by Western elites—politicians, academics, and journalists—is that Islam is at war with Western Civilization, or what’s left of it.
Lee Harris, the “philosopher of 9/11,” describes Islam as today’s “enemy of civilization.” By civilization he means a standard that can be applied across cultures and history. Civilization requires three basic ingredients: (1) the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, (2) the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and (3) a hatred of violence. Islam lacks these ingredients. Syrian-born Wafa Sultan, a psychiatrist now living in the United States, denies that Islam is a civilization.
Even those who refer to Jihadists as merely a radical element of Islam are tainted by “political correctness” or timidity. The issue is Islam per se from Muhammad to Ahmadinejad. World War III is all around us. Don’t worry: the United States is not about to declare war on Islam, let alone devastate Mecca or Medina to shatter faith in this creed.
It’s more realistic to be silent about evil, to remain on the defensive, to worry about airline safety while Jihadists plan their next attack—like exploding a “dirty” nuclear bomb in New York to bring the United States to its knees. This is Israel’s policy of “self-restraint.”
Israel and the United States are following the road map to self-destruction, regardless of the differences between their respective leaders. The addiction of Israeli prime ministers to the policy of “territory for peace” is independent of which party or party leader rules the nation. On this vital issue there is no basic difference between Shimon Peres and Netanyahu. Both endorse a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland, and no one should be deceived by Netanyahu’s spin about demilitarization. The Palestinian Authority is armed beyond the limits of the Oslo Agreement—a quicksand of lies that has ensnared Israel.
The government under Netanyahu has no more intention of disarming the PA than the Obama administration has of disarming Iran. Neither has the stamina to adopt a policy of victory. While Obama apologizes to the world for American greatness and is anxious to humble America vis-à-vis despotic Iran on the basis of moral equality, Netanyahu retreats from the idea of a “greater Israel,” and is anxious to humble his country vis-à-vis the despotic Palestinian Authority on the basis of “reciprocity.” But just as Ahmadinejad has ignored Obama’s self-effacing policy of “outreach,” so Mahmoud Abbas has ignored the self-effacing “outreach” policy of Netanyahu. Muslim pride trumps Western humility.
But wait! Isn’t Obama by Islamic law a Muslim? Didn’t he speak with Muslim pride in Cairo last year? Hasn’t he taken an imperious position toward Israel?
These discomfiting remarks provide a realistic assessment for the New Year. So let’s amuse ourselves with a fantasy. Imagine a future Israel going on the offensive like this:
(1) Israel demands that all Islamic states be given 30 days to renounce Jihad or be expelled from the United Nations.
(2) Israel demands that President Ahmadinejad be indicted for violating international law by vowing to “wipe Israel off the map.”
(3) Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority be dissolved on the grounds that it is nothing but an alliance of terrorist groups whose constitution calls for the annihilation of Israel, a member of the United Nations.
(4) Israel demands that the Government of the United States abide by international law, including the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine, which was ratified by the US Senate and subsequently proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5, 1925. This treaty, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, remains in force to this day as the supreme law of the land. Hence, the letter and spirit of this treaty, along with the US Constitution, are violated when American officials insist on creating a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel.
(5) Finally, Israel declares that any state that threatens Israel’s existence is signing its own death warrant, like Ahmadinejad’s predecessor in the Book of Esther.
Happy New Year!
————————————————
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 4 January 2010.
What is to be done about Iran?—
(1) its development of nuclear weapons;
(2) its potential control of Persian Gulf oil on which the world’s economy depends;
(3) its regional power via proxies and alliances;
(4) its global Islamic ambitions;
(5) its imminent threat to Israel’s existence.
While appeasement is entrenched in Washington, defeatism holds sway in Jerusalem, where the Netanyahu government has endorsed a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland.
Consider some simple facts. Estimates of the number of Muslims worldwide that support Jihad vary from 15 to 50 percent (and higher). Given 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth, this means that between 225 and 750 million Muslims have been conditioned by the Quran, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah” (Sura 9:111). It’s hardly reassuring to say “not all Muslims are terrorists.”
The prospects are worse than you have been told. Even if most Muslims were “moderates,” virtually all harbor the ethos of Islam. Hence the vast majority of Muslims are at hand to be recruited by “extremists” So what is to be done?
As long as the White House is occupied by Barack Obama, who bowed to Saudi King Abdullah, and purrs to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—the two principal patrons of Jihad—no serious policy will be taken by the United States to put an end to Islam’s threat to the free world. This was the paramount failing of the Bush administration.
Can it be that only Israel stands between civilization and barbarism, as Israel did almost 2,000 years ago when it planted the seed of Christianity in pagan Rome?
Today Europe, the home of Christianity, is dying of neo-paganism. Having replaced the God of Israel, the creator of life, Europe is succumbing to the Islamic god of death. Is this Europe’s punishment for the death camps of the Holocaust?
All talk of fostering a moderate Islam is spineless obfuscation of Islam’s essence: necrophilia. Islam’s religious nihilism is more deeply engrained in Muslims than Nazism was engrained in Germans. Mein Kampf is tepid compared to Islam’s turgid hatred of “infidels.” Some 56 states exalt of the Quran, which Winston Churchill called “the Mein Kampf of war.” Germany under Hitler did not use German children as human bombs. And unlike, Ahmadinejad, the sadistic beasts of Nazi Germany did not use thousands of German children to walk through enemy mine fields. The fools in Washington and Jerusalem have learned nothing from the enormity of evil manifested in the Nazi Holocaust; that evil now manifested in Islamic chants: “Death to America!”—“Death to Israel!”
The cult of hatred and death is everywhere. Can anything be done to save civilization? Here let me mention a proposal I published after 9/11—when George W. Bush was President, a proposal rendered obsolete by the election of Obama. Since Islam is not localized in a single nation state:
The President, I suggested, should call in all Muslim ambassadors. He should warn them—for starters—that the US will submit a resolution in the UN General Assembly stipulating that all Islamic states have 30 days to renounce militant Jihad, a doctrine that violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Failure to do so will result in expulsion from the UN.
Of course this proposal was not realistic. It’s not realistic to educate the American people about the nature of the enemy that destroyed the World Trade Center and almost 3,000 innocent human beings. Realism has taken a vacation from Washington.
President Bush did not tell the American people that 9/11 was nothing less than an Islamic declaration of war on the United States, evidence of which goes back to November 1979, when Iranian militants stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took some seventy Americans captive for 444 days. Nor did he mention the Islamic bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or the Islamic bombing of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Nor did he mention the Islamic attack on the USS Destroyer Cole that killed 17 American sailors in 2000.
These were acts of war, ignored as such by a decayed American government more concerned about Arab oil than American blood. The deadly significance of the 9/11 has yet to be grasped. This direct attack on the American homeland was cheered by the Islamic street. This worldwide Islamic hatred of America should be related to research conducted by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which concluded that Muslims have slaughtered some 270 million Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims since Muhammad added the veneer of monotheism to paganism. The unvarnished truth obscured by Western elites—politicians, academics, and journalists—is that Islam is at war with Western Civilization, or what’s left of it.
Lee Harris, the “philosopher of 9/11,” describes Islam as today’s “enemy of civilization.” By civilization he means a standard that can be applied across cultures and history. Civilization requires three basic ingredients: (1) the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, (2) the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and (3) a hatred of violence. Islam lacks these ingredients. Syrian-born Wafa Sultan, a psychiatrist now living in the United States, denies that Islam is a civilization.
Even those who refer to Jihadists as merely a radical element of Islam are tainted by “political correctness” or timidity. The issue is Islam per se from Muhammad to Ahmadinejad. World War III is all around us. Don’t worry: the United States is not about to declare war on Islam, let alone devastate Mecca or Medina to shatter faith in this creed.
It’s more realistic to be silent about evil, to remain on the defensive, to worry about airline safety while Jihadists plan their next attack—like exploding a “dirty” nuclear bomb in New York to bring the United States to its knees. This is Israel’s policy of “self-restraint.”
Israel and the United States are following the road map to self-destruction, regardless of the differences between their respective leaders. The addiction of Israeli prime ministers to the policy of “territory for peace” is independent of which party or party leader rules the nation. On this vital issue there is no basic difference between Shimon Peres and Netanyahu. Both endorse a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland, and no one should be deceived by Netanyahu’s spin about demilitarization. The Palestinian Authority is armed beyond the limits of the Oslo Agreement—a quicksand of lies that has ensnared Israel.
The government under Netanyahu has no more intention of disarming the PA than the Obama administration has of disarming Iran. Neither has the stamina to adopt a policy of victory. While Obama apologizes to the world for American greatness and is anxious to humble America vis-à-vis despotic Iran on the basis of moral equality, Netanyahu retreats from the idea of a “greater Israel,” and is anxious to humble his country vis-à-vis the despotic Palestinian Authority on the basis of “reciprocity.” But just as Ahmadinejad has ignored Obama’s self-effacing policy of “outreach,” so Mahmoud Abbas has ignored the self-effacing “outreach” policy of Netanyahu. Muslim pride trumps Western humility.
But wait! Isn’t Obama by Islamic law a Muslim? Didn’t he speak with Muslim pride in Cairo last year? Hasn’t he taken an imperious position toward Israel?
These discomfiting remarks provide a realistic assessment for the New Year. So let’s amuse ourselves with a fantasy. Imagine a future Israel going on the offensive like this:
(1) Israel demands that all Islamic states be given 30 days to renounce Jihad or be expelled from the United Nations.
(2) Israel demands that President Ahmadinejad be indicted for violating international law by vowing to “wipe Israel off the map.”
(3) Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority be dissolved on the grounds that it is nothing but an alliance of terrorist groups whose constitution calls for the annihilation of Israel, a member of the United Nations.
(4) Israel demands that the Government of the United States abide by international law, including the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine, which was ratified by the US Senate and subsequently proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5, 1925. This treaty, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, remains in force to this day as the supreme law of the land. Hence, the letter and spirit of this treaty, along with the US Constitution, are violated when American officials insist on creating a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel.
(5) Finally, Israel declares that any state that threatens Israel’s existence is signing its own death warrant, like Ahmadinejad’s predecessor in the Book of Esther.
Happy New Year!
————————————————
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 4 January 2010.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where Terrorist Boarded Airport - Barry Chamish
Within days of my last report on Ehud Barak and 9-11, an American passenger plane almost exploded in mid-air. The terrorist was one of 14,500 select people on international airport computers as a flight risk, yet the airport screeners missed him and allowed him onto the plane without even a passport. Read report one followed by my report from the previous article. You decide if it was an accident or the excuse, now given, of "systemic failure." OR, did I get something awful, right?
Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where
Terrorist Boarded Airport
An Israeli firm is responsible for security inspections in the
airport in Schiphol, Holland, the airport where Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab boarded the Airbus 330 heading for Detroit (USA). The
Israeli company, ICTS, is reportedly one of the leaders in security,
& operates in Amsterdam and a number of other European countries.
ICTS was established in 1982 and today employs 11,000 security
personnel in 22 countries. Many airports and airlines seek the
Israeli expertise and opt for ICTS to provide security for passengers
and employees.
According to Rom Langer, the director of the company, who granted
Channel 2 News an interview on motzei shabbos, the terrorist did
undergo a security inspection in Amsterdam, but he does not have the
information pertaining to the inspection.
When asked about the fact that the suspect attempted to set fire to
the aircraft, Langer responded, "You too can set the seat on fire,
using a lighter".
Schiphol is among the busiest airports in Europe, with many
passengers from Africa and Asia passing through, making their way to
North America. Security is reportedly stringent, and passengers are
limited regarding quantities of liquids and other substances
permitted on a flight.
A "total systemic failure" or PLAYING WITH THE DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR A FEW MINUTES:
And now Ehud Barak, PM of Israel in 1999. In the late 80s, the two chief accountants of the Likud Party, Ehud Olmert and Menachem Atzmon, were tried for graft and corruption but only Atzmon served prison time. When he was released in 1999, during the term of Ehud Barak as PM, he got a reward for his silence:
Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company ICTS bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. This convicted Likud criminal's firm was in charge of security at Logan Airport inspecting the validity of passports and visas, searching cargo, screening passengers when two airliners were hijacked from there on Sept. 11, 2001, and demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York.
Without Atzmon in charge of Newark and Logan Airports, 9-11 could NOT HAVE HAPPENED. The same goes for Schiphol this week.
**
I just put out a two disc DVD, Media Madness In The Middle East. It costs only $20 with postage. Read the following review, then ask yourself; why don't I have it?
http://second-amendment.tripod.com/d2a/
chamish@netvision.net.il
To my readers:
I don't know what you want to hear. That warm, loving Jewish Israel would never gain American sympathy by identifying a Muslim radical, letting him slip through airport security, and permitting him to pop a firecracker on a plane.
I used to be that naive until I wrote a book on the Rabin murder, and met witnesses to the setup of Baruch Goldstein, the mass kidnapping of Yemenite babies, the even more mass irradiation of all Sephardic children, all thoroughly documented; and I shared many a conversation with the historians and the witnesses.
Then I interviewed witnesses to the Holocaust and the deliberate Godawful Transfer Agreement between the Labor Zionists and the Nazis. I was invited to speak with a hospital technician who saw Rudolf Kastner murdered in his bed by the Shabak to make sure the sellout of 800,000 Jews trapped in Hungary by the Labor Zionists was not told.
And I wrote about the betrayal in my books.
So we come to today when you think Dr. Hiss, still of the Abu Kabir Institute, spends a decade illegally robbing corpses of their organs, with the help of a worldwide Israeli marketing arm, and you think this can't be. When 2/3 of the public vote Right and you get a repressive construction freeze policed by Israeli armed thugs.
The Israeli security forces are not religious Jews. They are at war with religious Jews. But it's a two front war with Arabs manning the other line. Because you support the war against the Arabs, you're forgetting your own battles.
I wish it wasn't true but unless you understand that you've met the enemy and he pretends to be us, 1939 is just around the corner.
Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where
Terrorist Boarded Airport
An Israeli firm is responsible for security inspections in the
airport in Schiphol, Holland, the airport where Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab boarded the Airbus 330 heading for Detroit (USA). The
Israeli company, ICTS, is reportedly one of the leaders in security,
& operates in Amsterdam and a number of other European countries.
ICTS was established in 1982 and today employs 11,000 security
personnel in 22 countries. Many airports and airlines seek the
Israeli expertise and opt for ICTS to provide security for passengers
and employees.
According to Rom Langer, the director of the company, who granted
Channel 2 News an interview on motzei shabbos, the terrorist did
undergo a security inspection in Amsterdam, but he does not have the
information pertaining to the inspection.
When asked about the fact that the suspect attempted to set fire to
the aircraft, Langer responded, "You too can set the seat on fire,
using a lighter".
Schiphol is among the busiest airports in Europe, with many
passengers from Africa and Asia passing through, making their way to
North America. Security is reportedly stringent, and passengers are
limited regarding quantities of liquids and other substances
permitted on a flight.
A "total systemic failure" or PLAYING WITH THE DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR A FEW MINUTES:
And now Ehud Barak, PM of Israel in 1999. In the late 80s, the two chief accountants of the Likud Party, Ehud Olmert and Menachem Atzmon, were tried for graft and corruption but only Atzmon served prison time. When he was released in 1999, during the term of Ehud Barak as PM, he got a reward for his silence:
Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company ICTS bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. This convicted Likud criminal's firm was in charge of security at Logan Airport inspecting the validity of passports and visas, searching cargo, screening passengers when two airliners were hijacked from there on Sept. 11, 2001, and demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York.
Without Atzmon in charge of Newark and Logan Airports, 9-11 could NOT HAVE HAPPENED. The same goes for Schiphol this week.
**
I just put out a two disc DVD, Media Madness In The Middle East. It costs only $20 with postage. Read the following review, then ask yourself; why don't I have it?
http://second-amendment.tripod.com/d2a/
chamish@netvision.net.il
To my readers:
I don't know what you want to hear. That warm, loving Jewish Israel would never gain American sympathy by identifying a Muslim radical, letting him slip through airport security, and permitting him to pop a firecracker on a plane.
I used to be that naive until I wrote a book on the Rabin murder, and met witnesses to the setup of Baruch Goldstein, the mass kidnapping of Yemenite babies, the even more mass irradiation of all Sephardic children, all thoroughly documented; and I shared many a conversation with the historians and the witnesses.
Then I interviewed witnesses to the Holocaust and the deliberate Godawful Transfer Agreement between the Labor Zionists and the Nazis. I was invited to speak with a hospital technician who saw Rudolf Kastner murdered in his bed by the Shabak to make sure the sellout of 800,000 Jews trapped in Hungary by the Labor Zionists was not told.
And I wrote about the betrayal in my books.
So we come to today when you think Dr. Hiss, still of the Abu Kabir Institute, spends a decade illegally robbing corpses of their organs, with the help of a worldwide Israeli marketing arm, and you think this can't be. When 2/3 of the public vote Right and you get a repressive construction freeze policed by Israeli armed thugs.
The Israeli security forces are not religious Jews. They are at war with religious Jews. But it's a two front war with Arabs manning the other line. Because you support the war against the Arabs, you're forgetting your own battles.
I wish it wasn't true but unless you understand that you've met the enemy and he pretends to be us, 1939 is just around the corner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)