Martin Indyk: A Commentary on Post-Modern Education*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

To avoid misunderstanding, I must say at the outset that I am not interested in Martin Indyk per se, if only because I do not regard him as worthy of my attention. But since pundits take Indyk seriously, perhaps they may be enlightened if I use him to reveal the basic cause of Israel’s and America’s malaise. Hence, a brief bio of Indyk is necessary, for which Wikipedia will suffice.

Indyk was born in 1951 to a Jewish family in England, but grew up and was educated in Australia. He graduated from the University of Sydney in 1972 and received a PhD in international relations from the Australian National University in 1977. He immigrated to the United States and later gained American citizenship in 1993.

He has taught at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He also served as special assistant to U.S. President Bill Clinton (whose administration, according to military theorist and former U.S. Army Colonel Ralph Peters, was “the most cowardly administration in history,” having failed to react vigorously to terrorist attacks on U.S. forces abroad, a failure leading to 9/11.)

Returning to Clinton adviser Martin Indyk, he also served as senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the United States National Security Council. While at the NSC, he served as principal adviser to the President and the National Security Advisor on Arab-Israeli issues, Iraq, Iran, and South Asia. He served two stints as U.S. Ambassador to Israel, from April 1995 to September 1997 and from January 2000 to July 2001.

Writing in the New York Times, and interviewed by Israel Army Radio on April 22, Indyk blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the rift with the Obama administration. He went so far as to say “Israel has to adjust its policy to the interests of the United States.” Since I am anything but a fan of Netanyahu, this report should not be deemed a defense of Bibi.

Notwithstanding Indyk’s education and his experience in the American executive department, he appears abysmally ignorant of facts documented in American sources and confirmed by U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye and former Chief of U.S Air Force Intelligence George Keegan that dollar for dollar, Israel gives more to the U.S. than the U.S. gives to Israel—to say nothing of the overt and covert U.S. military aid to Israel’s enemies, including the Palestinian Authority.

Like his Washington handlers, Indyk has long advocated a Palestinian state, even though one does not require military expertise to arrive at a former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff conclusion that such a state would endanger Israel’s existence. This is why Netanyahu insists that an Arab Palestinian state must be demilitarized and barred from forming alliances with any Arab regime.

Never mind that no Palestinian leader would survive a day if he accepted such terms. Consider only the fact that Indyk wants Israel to negotiate with the PA, whose mentality and behavior have been shaped by Islamic scriptures permeated by murderous hatred of “infidels,” especially Jews. Hence, I am not impressed by Indyk’s academic credentials and experience in the Clinton government, no more than George Orwell was impressed by the British intelligentsia of the 1930s which held posts in the Chamberlain government.

When Indyk served as Clinton’s ambassador to Israel, Israeli conservatives called him a “court Jew.” Such labels are not helpful. We know court Jews in America bend over backwards to avoid the canard of “dual loyalty.” Israel pays a price for this “political correctness.”

For a Democrat like Clinton, whose presidential campaign funding depended very much on Jewish donations, his appointment of Indyk was “religiously” as well as “politically” correct. And since Yasser Arafat was reportedly the most frequent foreign guest at the Clinton White House, Indyk’s endorsement of a Palestinian state made him a virtual ally of Arafat.

But what is “political correctness” if not a label descriptive of someone who willfully avoids taking a candid position on controversial political issues? To put it plainly, “political correctness” is a euphemism to describe a person lacking intellectual integrity or moral courage. But this label short-circuits serious thought about the factors that have shaped Indyk’s mentality.

Would it be proper to regard him simply as ignorant of the bellicose and mendacious nature of Arab-Islamic culture? But how is this possible given his fields of study at various universities? Can it be that his mentors were dominated by moral or multicultural relativism—the same doctrine that has influenced Barack Obama?

Like other “politically correct” democrats, Indyk tends to “mirror image”—sees Arabs as he sees him own peace-loving face in a mirror. This may explain his inability to take the bellicose nature of Arab-Islamic culture seriously. Perhaps he imbibed the academic doctrine of “conflict resolution,” which reinforces the natural bent of diplomats—a doctrine that ignores the enormity of evil in the world? There are legions of such people in academia—especially at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities, where moral relativism and pacifism flourish.

This might explain why Indyk ignored Arafat’s remark that “peace for us means the destruction of Israel.” It might also explain why a person tainted by multicultural relativism cannot factor into his evaluation of Islam the significance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vow to “wipe Israel off the map,” even though that Muslim leader sent tens of thousands of Iranian children to walk across and thereby explode Iraqi minefields in the Iraqi-Iranian war. (By the way, Ahmadinejad he was a recent guest of Columbia University!)

Hence, it is reckless folly to dismiss Ahmadinejad’s maledictions as mere rhetoric, as smug academics teach their students. The genocidal imprecations of Arabs and Muslims vis-a-vis Israel and America underlie what Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have called the “clash of civilizations"—which means, to any person unaffected by academic obscurantism: It’s either them or us.” Does Indyk deem these renowned scholars ignoramuses or “extremists”?

Even more important on a practical level than Lewis and Huntington is Ralph Peters mentioned earlier. In two books, Fighting for the Future and Beyond Terror, Peters cautions us not to negotiate with terrorists—and the Palestinian Authority is nothing if it not a terrorist organization bent on Israel’s annihilation. I assume the learned Mr. Indyk has read the PA’s genocidal charter. If so, he seems to construe it as mere rhetoric for the masses.

Let me therefore urge him to study the extraordinary erudition and worldwide experience of Michael Radu, especially Radu’s recent book Europe's Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West. What’s left of Europe is a “ghost”—nations disembodied by the multicultural relativism of their ruling elites (academics and politicians, judges and journalists). No wonder Barack Obama has been called an “empty suit.”

Of course, my remarks will have no impact on those who take civilization for granted. Like overindulged children, our decision makers and diplomats do not really understand—because they have not been taught to understand—how much hard work and stamina, how much self-sacrifice and heroism, are required in each generation to defend civilization against its enemies. Read Lee Harris to learn why. Or think of how much it cost in blood and treasure to save Europe from barbarism in the wars of the last century—a barbarism no less monstrous than that promised by totalitarian Islam.

Perhaps Ralph Peters, Michael Radu, and Lee Harris are beyond Mr. Indyk’s limited comprehension. I doubt men of their “politically incorrect” views are required reading at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities. I wonder if any academic today—despite all the drivel about academic freedom—can remain at his post if he were to explain, in scholarly terms, using Islamic documents, why it is futile and fatal to negotiate with the self-professed enemies of Israel and America, be they Fatah Palestinians or Iranian mullahs.

Since Martin Indyk surely does not want America and Israel to become mere “ghosts,” I wonder what he would say after reading Raymond Ibraham’s essay on the Islamic art of dissimulation, “taqiyya,” a military doctrine best revealed by Ibrahim in the Winter 2010 edition of the Middle East Quarterly (http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war).

Some readers may accuse me of arrogance by criticizing a man of Indyk’s academic and governmental background. But I feel obliged to do so not because I am a former officer in the U.S. Air Force who studied under Leo Strauss, a classical political scientist without equal in the twentieth century. No: you don’t need to be a soldier or a scholar to discern the enormity of evil confronting America and Israel. So I am not impressed by America’s erstwhile ambassador to Israel. Indeed, he reminds me of Nietzsche’s remark about German intellectuals: “great learning and great stupidity often go well together under the same hat.”

____________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 26 April 2010,

Understanding the Jewish Psyche

Excerpts from Echoes of the Holocaust

by Rebecca Bynum

A Review of Jihad and Genocide

by Richard L. Rubenstein

. . . In addition to being a student of history, Rubenstein is also a student of psychology. He doesn’t write history in terms of disembodied historic forces playing upon hapless individuals. His history is driven by men of flesh and blood whose actions are psychologically conditioned by their worldview and experience.

. . . . The most poignant aspects of Rubenstein’s body of work concerns the meek acceptance of the Jews of their fate at the hands of the Nazis and not only acceptance, but active collaboration in some cases, born of the denial of reality coupled with the hope for the survival of a remnant.

In The Cunning of History, he writes:
One of the elements conditioning the compliant Jewish response to the process of extermination was their own history. The last time Jews had taken up arms against an enemy was during the Judeo-Roman Wars of 66-70 C. E. and 131-35 C.E. On both occasions, they fought valiantly and lost disastrously. Those who during the first Judeo-Roman was had counseled submission and surrender were installed by the victors as the religious and political leaders of the Jewish people. The religious leaders of the European diaspora for almost two thousand years were the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees and rabbis who rose to political and religious dominance only after they had been selected by the Romans as their "loyal and non-seditious agents." Thus, diaspora Judaism began in the aftermath of catastrophic military defeat and survived by developing a culture of surrender and submission in consequence of that defeat. Until the bloody wars with the Romans, the Jews had been a violent, troublesome, rebellious nation. Their transformation from a warrior people of the sword into a submissive people of the book led by plebian scribes and scholars took several generations. By the year 200 C.E., Jewish character had undergone one of the most radical psychological and cultural transformations in history. Rabbinic Judaism is the result of that transformation. It shaped Jewish character and conditioned Jewish responses in the diaspora for two thousand years. Long after Western Jews were secularized and considered themselves "emancipated" from their ancient traditions, they continued as an organized community to respond to overlords as had those who surrendered to the Romans. No matter how grave the provocation, the Jewish Community instinctively avoided violent response. They sought to avert hostile action by bribery, petitions for mercy, or appeals to the religious or moral sentiments of their adversaries. [2]

That is why during the Holocaust the Germans were able to incorporate the existing Jewish leadership and organizations into their bureaucracy and thereby to direct Jews to cooperate in their own extermination.

In the Warsaw Ghetto and in Lodz, Poland, the Jewish council, or Judenrat, did not resist German directives even when the Germans demanded the "selection" of 10,000 Jews a day for deportation. Jewish bureaucrats made the selection; Jewish police rounded up the victims. [3]

When resistance was finally organized in the Warsaw Ghetto, they were forced to shoot the leader of the Jewish police along with several others in order to overthrow and replace the existing Jewish Council. Regarding Europe today, at a time of sharply increasing antisemitic attacks and a growing atmosphere of persecution, it is hard to discern any organized and active Jewish resistance. We see instead an emphasis on "interfaith dialogue" along with increased emigration from Europe on the part of young Jews who see the writing on the wall for their children. Last year during Israel's brief war in Gaza, a small demonstration in Malmo, Sweden in favor of Israel was attacked by a screaming mob of Arabs and Swedish leftists, who threw bottles and firecrackers as the police passively looked on and did nothing. The mayor, Ilmar Reepalu, insisted to The Sunday Telegraph that he was opposed to anti-Semitism, but added: "I believe these are anti-Israel attacks, connected to the war in Gaza. We want Malmo to be cosmopolitan and safe for everybody and we have taken action. I have started a dialogue forum. There haven't been any attacks on Jewish people, and if Jews from the city want to move to Israel that is not a matter for Malmo. [4]

Meanwhile, Malmo’s synagogue employs full time security guards along with rocket-proof glass for the windows, and the Jewish kindergarten is equipped with thick steel doors. This pattern is repeating all over Europe and Great Britain.And even after the Holocaust and in the face of the most strident genocidal rhetoric, the denial on the part of both Jewish organizations and secular Western governments continues.

Read the whole thing!

Lots More There

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/58633/sec_id/58633


[2] Rubenstein, Richard L., The Cunning of History: The Holocaust and the American Future (Perennial, an imprint of Harper Collins, 1975, reprint 2001) pg. 70
[3] Ibid. pg. 74
[4] Meo, Nick “Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise an Anti-Semitic hate crimes” The Sunday Telegraph Feb. 21, 2010

Are you a "Good" Jew or a "Bad" Jew?

Subject: I am a bad Jew (as defined here)

This was written by Rami Kaminski, MD, founder and director of the Institute for Integrative Psychiatry in New York City--from Prof Paul Eidelberg:


For centuries, we lived in Berdichev.

In the brutal Ukrainian winter of 1941, SS soldiers arrived there and rounded up eighty-seven members of my family – babies, young adults, octogenarians – stripped them naked, marched them to a nearby ditch, and executed them. Their lifeless bodies fell silently into a mass grave.

Like most Jews in Europe, my family "cooperated" with the Final Solution. They did not resist or fight back.

Six million Jews were slaughtered in a period of four years. They received little sympathy while they were still alive and hunted down like animals.

There was no public outcry because the Holocaust fit the world's narrative for Jews during the past 2000 years: a people destined to be persecuted and slaughtered.

During their two millennial in the Diaspora, Jews were not known to resist. There are few recorded instances in which Jews turned against their host nations or retaliated against their murderers.

Instead, the survivors – if there were any – were expelled or left for another place. The murdered were regarded as "good" Jews. They accepted their fate helplessly, without resistance.

This narrative of the Jews has played out on the historical stage with boring monotony: Jews get killed because they are Jews. Nothing novel about it.

After the Holocaust, however, the world, disgusted by this particularly ghoulish period of history, accorded some sympathy for the Jews.

Media commentary about the ongoing Gaza War reveals the world has now reverted to its pre-Holocaust perspective.

Today, the only good Jew is a powerless Jew willing to become a dead one.

The Zionist Revolution is to blame. It changed everything. Jews re-created their own country. The Arabs attacked the new Jewish state the day after independence and promised to complete Hitler's genocide. In succeeding decades, the Arabs attacked again and again.

Strangely, the Jews, many of them refugees from Arab nations, adopted a surprising, new tactic: they fought back.

With Zionism, the Jews stubbornly refused to follow the centuries-old script. They refuse to be killed without resistance. As a result, the world has become increasingly enraged at their impertinence.

The recent events in Gaza and Mumbai make this plain.

In 2005, Israel eliminated all Jewish presence in Gaza making it "Jud[enrein]," and handed it over to the Palestinians.

Left behind were synagogues and thriving green houses. The Arabs looted and destroyed them literally the day after Israel 's withdrawal was complete.

Where these structures once stood, the Palestinians built military bases and installed rocket launchers to shell Israeli civilians.

To date, some 7,000 missiles have fallen on Israeli cities and towns, killing and maiming dozens, and sowing widespread terror.

Medical studies reveal nearly all Jewish children in the communities bordering Gaza suffer from serious, trauma-induced illness.

The Gazan Palestinians then elected Hamas to lead them. Hamas proceeded to kill or imprison their political rivals, and its leaders, true to the Hamas charter, were unabashed in clearly stating their aims: they will not stop until they achieve their Final Solution, kill all the Jews, take over the land of Israel, and establish a theocracy governed by Islamic law.

As killing Jews for being Jews has been a national sport for centuries, Islamic militants are justified in believing they are merely fulfilling historical tradition in Argentina, India and Gaza. Surely the Jews in Mumbai did not occupy Gaza. They were tortured and killed just for being Jews. And predictably, in the eyes of the world, they immediately became good Jews, just like my murdered family in Bertishev.

Good Jews would wait until Hamas has weapons enabling its members to achieve their ultimate goal of absolute mass murder. Those enraged by Israel 's defensive military action insist Hamas uses only "crude" rockets, as if Qassams were BB guns, and military inferiority were somehow equivalent with moral superiority.

In fact, Hamas now has Iranian-supplied Grad missiles which have landed on Be'er Sheva and the outskirts of Tel Aviv.

Westerners have had only sporadic exposure to the indiscriminate killing in the name of "holy war" which Israel has lived with for years. Memories of 9-11, Madrid, and London have dimmed.

This is not because the Islamic militants made a careful choice of weapons. They simply have not yet acquired nuclear bombs. Once they do, the West will develop a less detached view about the Islamics' professed intentions for the "infidels."

The only enlightened people in the civilized world who actually get it are the Israelis. They've not had time for detached philosophical pondering. They've been too busy confronting the reality of Islamic fundamentalism.

Soon, Iran will have nuclear weapons. It will give them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Today, Jews must take a position: either be "good" Jews willing to be slaughtered without resistance, or be "bad" Jews who defend themselves at the cost of being pariahs of our enlightened world.

Good Jews would wait for another six million to be murdered, and pick up to leave for another country to start the cycle again. The bad ones refuse to go calmly into the ditch.

I confess: I'm a bad Jew.

What are you?

American Jews and Israel

(an overheard conversation)

DG: Rahm Emanuel reportedly said, “I’ve had it with Israel.” I think a lot of Jews now feel that way. They’re tired of worrying about Israel, unendingly, from crisis to crisis . The Palestinians are the heroes of our victim-adoring age; accordingly, many liberal Jews have come to believe the Palestinian “Nakba” revision, the lies that turned a miracle into another Jewish blood libel.

But whatever their politics, modern Jews have little sense of history. I speak about the ‘48 war, and the lies about it that are now believed by too many Jews. For most U.S. Jews, the ‘48 war is an old and perhaps boring story. They saw “Exodus”; they don’t want to see it again. They don’t realize that history is the present, and that [post-Zionist] revisionist history is central to the attack on contemporary Israel. It is one of the manifold attempts to bring it down, first morally and then physically.

JP: Did you stay in touch with others from Aliyah Bet?

DG: Yes. I was one of the founders of the now defunct American Veterans of Israel organization. I held office and attended their reunions in Israel and the States. But that was then. Most of us are dead now, and I haven’t had a drink with an old shipmate in years.

Bob Levitan, our captain, participated indirectly in the breakout from Acco. With his Leica, he took ID-type photos of all the Irgun and Lehi prisoners, and these were later used in the phony ID cards issued to them prior to their escape.

JP: What similarities, if any, do you see between American Jewish attitudes in the 1930s and 1940s and today?

DG: In the 1930s and ’40s, American Jews sanctified FDR. Now they are equally loyal to Obama. Despite their growing awareness of the Holocaust, during World War II American Jews for the most part stayed silent – very few mass protests and very little covert action. “FDR will save the Jews.”

My fear is that too many contemporary Jews are preparing to repeat this pattern. They will not embarrass the great and good Obama with their selfish concerns for what they view as a victimizing country – Israel – that no longer deserves their loyalty. Too many will follow Obama’s lead and stay silent while Israel is weakened or even destroyed.

(not really an overheard conversation)

from
ISRAEL’S REBIRTH ‘A BORING STORY’ TO U.S. JEWS.
AN INTERVIEW WITH AMERICAN ZIONIST HERO DR. DAVID GUTMANN
JewishPress.com Posted Mar 29 2010

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/03/29/dr-david-gutmann-an-american-zionist-hero/?singlepage=true

Dr. David Gutmann: An American-Zionist Hero
Phyllis Chesler
Chesler Chronicles

via Solomonia

Read the whole thing . . . Click here

What Needs Saying (What Bibi Should Say)

Paul Eidelberg

In response to the infamous Goldstone Report, Israel’s Prime Minister should quote that marvelous poet and literary critic Matthew Arnold who wrote: “As long as the world lasts, all who want to make progress in righteousness will come to Israel for inspiration…”

In response to European anti-Semitism, Prime Minister Netanyahu—with Genesis 12:1-3 in mind—might quote South African author Olive Schreiner: “The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed him have written out their own curse.”

Finally, how would you feel if you heard Mr. Netanyahu quote British historian and statesman Thomas B. Macaulay who declared, in a debate in 1833 in the British House of Commons over whether Jews should have their legal and political disabilities removed by law:

In the infancy of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letters and arts were still unknown in Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the site of Rome, this condemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid temple ... their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians and poets.

Ah, if only Mr. Netanyahu—when speaking of Jerusalem—had the wit to quote Macaulay in the presence of Barack Obama!

The Worst Case Scenario*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

On March 19, the day after this report was nearing completion, Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post’s brilliant political analyst, published an article entitled “Obama’s war on Israel.” My present report goes a bit further. No reflection on her perspicacity. I just want to pursue the logic of Obama to its ultimate logical conclusion, even if he is a fraud or an Alice in Wonderland, as some believe.

In deference to Glick, however, who takes Obama seriously—as one should—I will begin by quoting a salient aspect of her timely article. She writes:

On [March 12], Obama ordered his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum. First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo. Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967. Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than half a million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called “right of return” …

Only an idiot would fail to see in this ultimatum that Obama, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Seeing this, the Arabs have no need to engage in negotiations, which suggests to me that Obama is tacitly inviting them to eliminate Israel by war! Ponder this: Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Nor is this all.

At the outset of his presidential campaign, I wrote that Obama’s slogan of CHANGE really meant “Regime Change.” A few months after the election, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton reported that Obama is the first post-American president of the United States.

Accordingly, Obama’s policy of distancing America from Israel and drawing the US closer to the Muslim world is a logical, political, and metaphysical consequence of his anti-American mentality. Even if Obama lives in fairyland, the stakes are too high to use ordinary criticism when speaking of such a president—holder of the most powerful office in the world.

Obama’s anti-America and anti-Israel objectives are evident not only in his political statements and policies, but also in the attitude of some of his political appointments and advisers—court Jews as well as non-Jews. Among the latter, suffice to mention former President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a crypto-Marxist. To this anti-Semite add Obama’s appointment of Samantha Power to the National Security Council, who proposed a US invasion of Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

Now ponder Obama’s disparagement of the American Declaration of Independence—whose “Higher Law” doctrine is rooted in the Torah. I deem this a war on America metaphysically equivalent to his war on Israel. If we juxtapose his early Muslim upbringing and current Muslim appeasement, logic indicates that Obama’s war on Israel and America is nothing less than a war against Western civilization in favor of Islam’s global ascendancy. Here is further evidence.

Obama’s (absurd) reference to America as a Muslim state, his adulation of Islam at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University (the Harvard of the Middle East), his demotion of Judaism in his Inaugural Address, his indifference to Ahmadinejad’s maledictions “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” his bowing to Saudi King Abdullah—these and other signs are indicative of an insidious global agenda.

It will not do to describe Obama as a closet Communist or to reveal his Muslim sympathies. We know of his anti-American and anti-Israel gurus such as Marxist Saul Alinsky, terrorist Bill Ayers, PLO-supporter and Saudi-connected Rashid Khalidi, “Nation of Islam” Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan, or “God damn America” preacher Jeremiah Wright—to mention only a few of Obama’s charming mentors.

Professor of international relations Angelo Codevilla warns that Obama is conducting a “self-discrediting [hence anti-American] diplomacy toward Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China.” Add Syria, which aids insurgents in Iraq and ships Iranian missiles to Iran’s client Hezbollah in Lebanon. Obama is not only appeasing enemies and punishing friends; he is disarming America morally and militarily. Let me reiterate his “war on Israel.” Israel is not only America’s most steadfast ally, supplier of advanced technology and incomparable intelligence. Israel is the only outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. The loss of Jerusalem would ignite Islam’s long smoldering ambition to establish a Muslim world order.

Admittedly, every American administration since Nixon and Kissinger has pressed Israel to risk its existence—it’s called taking “risks for peace”—by conceding geostrategic assets to the PLO, the wiliest spearhead of Islam. The American government, conned into believing the PLO represents “moderation,” secretly and openly bankrolled this Fatah-led mafia during the past two decades. Of course, this is nothing compared to the Carter-Brzezinski subversion of the Shah of Iran, which facilitated the Iranian Revolution the return of the Parisian-exiled Ayatollah Khomeini to Teheran.

America’s ruling class—its policy-making, opinion-making, and military elites—is now being led by an Islamophile, an enemy of America. This ruling class, thanks to America’s misnamed “higher” education, is not only ignorant of the true nature of Islam; it is also ignorant of, or has never internalized, the classics of statecraft and war. Tainted by multicultural relativism, this backward ruling class cannot even see that while there are “moderate Muslims,” Islam is anything but moderate. This ruling class cannot address the fact that what it misleadingly calls Muslim “extremists” increasingly dominates Islamdom. Indeed, these Islamic-true Muslims are spreading throughout American democracy where they exploit a mindless liberalism or tolerance of “diversity.”

Thus, to paraphrase Codevilla, when a Muslim shouts “Allahu Akhbar,” as did U.S Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan as he shot 51 colleagues as Fort Hood, Texas, the official reaction revealed the stupefied and pusillanimous character of America’s ruling class—politicians and journalists and even high-ranking military officers. After the shootings, President Obama warned against “jumping to conclusions,” and Army Chief of Staff George Casey added, “it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty here.” Codevilla comments: “Never mind that Hasan identified himself on his business card as “SoA” (a soldier of Allah).

Official obscurantism makes Obama’s appeasement of Iran all the more fearful. Armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, Iran could control the oil resources of the Middle East, emasculate Europe, totally collapse the American economy, and even resurrect the Persian Empire—the startling conclusion of Robert Baer, former CIA operative in the Middle East.

An American president who praises Islam and displays contempt for America’s Founding Fathers now constitutes an existential threat to Western Civilization.

This worst case scenario will be dismissed as scare-mongering. But whoever thought PLO chief Yasser Arafat, an Arab terrorist expelled from Lebanon, holed up in Tunis, without Iranian oil or arms, without even a minute fraction of Iran’s population and territory—who ever dreamed that this villain would become a mortal threat to Israel by gaining worldwide support for a PLO state in Israel’s heartland—and with the endorsement of Binyamin Netanyahu?! If the despicable PLO could accomplish this objective, it would be foolhardy to dismiss my worst case scenario.

As many scholars have warned, the West is involved in a clash of civilizations with Islam. We are in a world war having metaphysical significance. This war will not be won or even waged by democracies steeped in multicultural relativism. The trial of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders exemplifies the decadence of such democracies. Recall how they treated the gallant Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who dared tell the truth about Islam in her book The Rage and the Pride. Recall how a Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for her alleged violations of the Swiss criminal code and requested the Italian government to either prosecute or extradite her. Recall how an Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial on charges of "defaming Islam" in her book The Force of Reason, most notably for her reference to Islam as "a pool that never purifies." But there is more.

Note Europe’s permissive immigration laws, the influx of millions of prolific anti-Western and economically ruinous Muslim immigrants—a sociological disaster documented by Michael Radu, Europe’s Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West (2009). Fearful of the canard of “racism,” and animated by a perverted humanitarianism that permits the immigration even of Muslim terrorists expelled by Arab countries, England and Europe are committing national and cultural suicide.

This madness is invading the United States and it has anti-Semitic consequences for Israel. A countermovement to preserve Western Civilization is urgently needed. I will discuss this matter in a future article. Some people may want to send this article to Caroline Glick.
____________________

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, March 22, 2010.

Paul Eidelberg
http://futureisrael.org/
http://www.foundation1.org/
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/04/urgent-public-message-from-prof.html

Read Caroline Glick's article A revolutionary proposal

. . . and the foregoing post: When the U.S. is once again "punishing" Israel . . .
. . . it is a time to remember

When the U.S. is once again "punishing" Israel . . .

. . . it is a time to remember

"In case we forgot who Begin was . . .

from Prof. Paul Eidelberg in Israel comes the following:

What M.Begin said to the US when it was unhappy with the annexation of the Golan


Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.

In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement. It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public. Mr. Begin complained that the U.S. had punished Israel three times in the past six months. Israel was no "vassal state" or a "banana republic." He also hinted of anti-Semitic overtones in some of the punitive measures taken by the United States. Text:

Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has "punished" Israel.

On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor "Osirak" near Baghdad. I don't want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.

Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us - and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.

Not long after, in a defensive act - after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.

You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase "body-count". We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable - as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.

We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.

Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.

A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the "Golan Heights Law."

Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.

What kind of expression is this - "punishing Israel"? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don't behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?

Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with "punishments". He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.

You have no right to "punish" Israel - and I protest at the very use of this term.

You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.

You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.

I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No "sword of Damocles" is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.

The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America - and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.

We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections - and threaten us that if we don't consent you will suspend the memorandum.

You have imposed upon us financial punishments - and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.

This is therefore a violation of the President's word. Is it customary? Is it proper?
You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do - to "hit us in our pocket"?

In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us "terrorists" - and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: "This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket" - and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.

To hit us in the pocket - this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.

First, the slogan was sounded "Begin or Reagan?" - and that meant that whoever opposes the deal is supporting a foreign prime minister and is not loyal to the President of the United States. And thus Senators like Jackson, Kennedy, Packwood and of course Boschwitz are not loyal citizens.

Then the slogan was sounded "We should not let the Jews determine the foreign policy of the United States." What was the meaning of this slogan? The Greek minority in the U.S. did much to determine the Senate decision to withhold weapons from Turkey after it invaded Cyprus. No one will frighten the great and free Jewish community of the U.S., no one will succeed in cowing them with anti-Semitic propaganda. They will stand by our side. This is the land of their forefathers - and they have a right and a duty to support it.

Some say we must "rescind" the law passed by the Knesset. "To rescind" is a concept from the days of the Inquisition. Our forefathers went to the stake rather than "rescind" their faith.
We are not going to the stake. Thank God. We have enough strength to defend our independence and to defend our rights.

If it were up to me (alone) I would say we should not rescind the law. But as far as I can judge there is in fact no one on earth who can persuade the Knesset to rescind the law which it passed by a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Weinberger - and later Mr. Haig - said that the law adversely affects UN Resolution 242. Whoever says that has either not read the Resolution or has forgotten it, or has not understood it.

The essence of the Resolution is negotiation to determine agreed and recognized borders. Syria has announced that it will not conduct negotiations with us, that it does not and will not recognize us - and thus removed from Resolution 242 its essence. How, therefore, could we adversely affect 242?

As regards the future, please be kind enough to inform the Secretary of, State that the Golan Heights Law will remain valid. There is no force on earth that can bring about its rescission.
As for the contention that we surprised you, the truth is that we did not want to embarrass you. We knew your difficulties. You come to Riyadh and Damascus. It was President Reagan who said that Mr. Begin was right - that had Israel told the U.S. about the law (in advance) the U.S. would have said no. We did not want you to say no - and then go ahead and apply Israeli law to the Golan Heights.

Our intention was not to embarrass you.

As regards Lebanon, I have asked that the Secretary of State be informed that we will not attack, but if we are attacked, we will counterattack.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1981-1982/91%20Statement%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20on%20US%20Measure

ALSO, see













A revolutionary proposal

http://the-jew-in-yellow.blogspot.com/2010/03/revolutionary-proposal-from-melanie.html

DEBKAfile Special Report March 20, 2010, 6:54 PM (GMT+02:00)
via Israpundit
Obama recalls bunker-buster bomb kits to bar Israeli strike on Iran -

Obama recalls bunker-buster bomb kits to bar Israeli strike on Iran

Advanced BLU-100 recalled by President Obama

Shortly after Vice President Joe Biden's Israel visit ended on March 11 in high dudgeon over the approval 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, US president Barack Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munition- JDAM already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. This step, the pointer to a US arms embargo for preventing Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites, is first revealed here by debkafile's military sources.

US military sources describe the consignment as consisting of 387 JDAM kits for attachment to the warheads of 2,000-pound BLU-109/MK-84 or the 1,000-pound BLU-110/MK-83 bunker-busters for their conversion into smart bombs. On March 13, debkafile disclosed that the Obama administration was pondering withholding from Israel military hardware that could be used for an Israeli attack on Iran.

In late February, we reported that defense minister Ehud Barak had submitted to defense secretary Robert Gates a list of the items Israel required urgently to stand up to a four-front assault by Iran and its allies - mainly air force ordnance, certain types of missile and advanced electronic devices. Barak made it clear that all these items must be present in Israel before the outbreak of hostilities. The requests were so urgent that the minister proposed that if Washington was reluctant to hand them directly to Israel, they could be stored for the interim in the big American emergency depots in Israel's Negev.

The 387 DJAP kits were due for delivery at one of the Israeli Air Force's Negev bases in March. Because of his concern over the US president's step to divert the shipment, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided to take the defense minister with him to Washington next Monday, March 22 and have him present at the meeting with Obama which the US media reports has been fixed for Tuesday (the day after his address to the AIPAC annual conference).

Together they will ask for the delayed munitions to be released and handed over as part of any general understandings they may reach.

debkafile reports that the pair of Israeli Gulfstream Vs converted to spy planes sighted over Budapest on March 17 may have been an Israeli signal of its concern over White House measures for keeping the means of attacking Iran out of its hands. The long-haul flights, demonstrating the Israel Air Force's ability to cover the distance to Iran, took the aircraft over Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania as well as Hungary. The two planes carried out maneuvers over Budapest international airport with no attempt at concealment. Because they fly in pairs, Western aviation experts say the electronic measures aboard are able to detect the functioning of electronic devices, radar stations, communications centers and cell phones on the ground, locate them and relay the data for warplanes to destroy them. Two years ago, in June 2008, Israel deployed more that 100 Air Force F-16 and F-15 warplanes over Greece and the Aegean Sea in a big exercise designed to showcase its long-range capabilities.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 20, 2010,