War Models

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Nazi Germany never attacked, killed or wounded a single American on the American continent. Yet the U.S. declared war on Germany, bombed its industrial and civilian centers, invaded its territory, but not before invading and liberating France – at the necessary cost of killing civilians. America’s war policy? “Unconditional surrender.” The outcome? Germany surrendered, unconditionally.

North Korea, a Soviet proxy, never attacked, killed or maimed a single American on the American mainland. Yet the U.S., under United Nations auspices, waged war against North Korea (some 10,000 kilometers away), bombed and invaded its territory, killing many thousands of civilians in the process, until driven out by the Chinese. America’s war policy? Restoration of the status quo ante. The outcome was precisely that: Korea remained divided. The U.S. did not win the war and did not lose – except tens of thousands of American soldiers.

North Vietnam, another Soviet client, never attacked, killed or wounded a single American on American soil. Yet the U.S. waged an undeclared war against that distant nation, bombed it by air and by sea, but, most significantly, refrained from sending ground forces into North Vietnam. America’s war policy? Withdrawal of Communist forces from South Vietnam and restoration of the status quo ante. The outcome? A “political solution” leaving Communists in the south. After a “decent interval,” the Soviet client conquered America’s ally.

Now a brief commentary on these wars examined in reverse order.

Both as a private citizen and presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan regarded the Vietnam War as “immoral” Why? Because it was based on what he and others called a “no win” policy (precisely the policy of Israeli governments). Informed by expert military opinion, Mr. Reagan took the position that if two U.S. divisions had been sent into North Vietnam in 1965 – and there was then no sound reason to fear Chinese intervention – the war would have soon been over.

More than 50,000 Americans would not have lost their lives. North and South Vietnam would not have suffered a million civilian casualties. South Vietnam would not now be living under a Communist tyranny.

And the world, so conscience-stricken about civilian casualties resulting from Israel’s retaliations against Arab terrorists, would not have witnessed – without evincing a breath of moral outrage – the genocidal murder of an estimated three million Cambodian women, men, and children.

Returning to the Korean War, most of the American casualties occurred during the protracted negotiations with the Communist at Panmunjom. It’s not easy – indeed, it may be inane – to negotiate with Communists, or with any group ideologically committed to your ultimate demise.

With that as their long-range objective, such enemies are infinitely more patient than democratic politicians. Besides, they don’t have to worry about the next election, about public opinion or about sensation-seeking journalists who can count trees without seeing the forest.

Nor do they have to concern themselves about pacifists, leftists, multinational corporations, and, sad to say, opportunists in rival parties animated by partisan and personal interests.

It’s not easy to negotiate with Communists who scorn the bourgeois prejudice that all conflicts can be solved by peaceful means. And so the Communists dragged out the negotiations at Panmunjom, waiting for divisive elements in the U.S. to do their work for them.

The only thing Communists (and their Arab counterparts) respect is force. In dealing with such people, nothing is more cruel than kindness – or what democrats like to call “self-restraint” or “moderation,” qualities despised as weakness by these enemies of democracy.

If any conflict refutes the bandied-about notion that wars solve no problems, it is World War II. That war resulted in the destruction of what was then the most dangerous tyranny on earth, Nazi Germany.

Now, if Israel were looking for a war-making model against the successors of the Nazis – not only Hamas but also the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority adored by the Condoleezza Rice – surely one would not recommend the Vietnam model devised by Henry Kissinger, for which he received a Nobel Peace Prize. The Vietnam Accords left 140,000 Communist troops in South Vietnam. Nor would one recommend the Korean model in which interminable negotiations resulted in the mere restoration of the status quo ante.

If any model is appropriate in dealing with Israel’s implacable enemies, it is the model used by the United States against Nazi Germany.

Anti-Semitic Muslim, Arab and Neo-Nazi Websites

by Shlomo Muslim, Ph.D.

From, and thanks to, TMQ2
"The Muslim Question Blog"
The Anti-Jihad ‘Love’ Blog
http://tmq2.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/anti-semites-muslims-arabs-and-neo-nazi-websites/

Arab oil money is poured into bullying, intimidating, litigating, and killing anyone and everyone who says, writes, publishes or thinks something certain Muslims find upsetting. Meanwhile, Muslim anti-Semites and Muslim money poured into anti-Semites have led to the greatest amount of hate speech, hate literature, hate web-sites, and wars fueled by hate ever.

I call it hate, even though the term is shorthand, used here to encompass all the things Arabs and Muslims do that others find offensive. That would include anything that reeks of having a double-standard, like we get to practice our religion but you don’t get to practice yours, we get to live in the Middle East and in Africa and parts of Europe, and you don’t. We get to kill you, you don’t get to kill us. We get treated well by you when we’re prisoners of war, but we chop your heads off. That kind of thing.

Of all this Muslim hatred, just how pervasive is the hatred on the web you might ask — and what can be done to combat it?

The Website bills itself as “the Internet’s largest scholarly collection of articles on Zionist history.” A seemingly endless list of topics includes “the genocidal plans of Zionism,” “Jewish banking and financial manipulations,” “Jewish mind control methods” (”liberalism” and “civil rights” among others), and “Jewish pornography.” A reeking cauldron of every anti-Semitic trope ever invented, it even manages the classic anti-Semitic double-think of seeing Jews behind communism and capitalism, government and crime, black slavery and . . .

Continued at . . .
http://tmq2.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/anti-semites-muslims-arabs-and-neo-nazi-websites/

How Great Warriors Become Great Humanists

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Since Israel is at war, Israel’s General Staff would do well to emulate General George S. Patton, the warrior most feared by Nazi Germany.

On the eve of battle, Patton would admonish his soldiers: “The object of war is not to die for your country. It is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his.” This requires confronting and killing the enemy on the battlefield.

“Never let the enemy rest.” No cease fires or hudnas. Unconditional surrender should be Israel’s proclaimed war aim!

“We want the enemy to KNOW that they are fighting the toughest fighting men in the world!” This precludes benevolence (which Arabs despise). Just as Hamas (or Hezbollah) warriors would show no mercy to you, so you should show no mercy to them. These warriors must be killed even if this results in civilian casualties.

“Forget about army regulations … [which] are written by those who have never been in battle…Our only mission in combat is to win.” Hence, general officers may sometimes have to disobey orders of the political echelon!

Patton’s famous admonition, “Grab the Enemy by the nose and kick him in the pants,” though simple, is profoundly significant in the war between Jews and Arabs. Israel must devastate the Arabs or Muslims from top to bottom so as to erase the Islamic arrogance that prompts them to wage war against “infidels.”

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak shy from these war principles, which would require them to order the IDF to confront and kill the enemy primarily on the battlefield. Bombing the enemy’s infrastructure should not obscure the importance of destroying the enemy’s ground forces. The defeat of these Arab warriors must be so thorough that it will eradicate their desire to wage war for a hundred years—the policy of the Allies powers that made militant Germany and Japan lovers of peace.

Olmert will be reluctant to pursue this policy not because he is a humanitarian—recall Amona—but because he fears world opinion, UN condemnation, and possible sanctions. This fear cannot but undermine the General Staff and the fighting spirit of Israeli soldiers. This fear is baseless.

It is of capital importance that Israel’s ruling elites pursue the war in Lebanon and in Gaza as a war between good and evil. They must shun the moral relativism that tainted Ariel Sharon who said, while Jews were being reduced to body parts, that he does not think in terms of “black and white.” This relativism modulated Sharon’s policy of self-restraint toward Arab warriors—a policy that resulted in more than 6,000 Jewish casualties under his premiership.

That Sharon did not think in terms of “black and white” indicates that he was unfit to be Israel’s prime minister, especially in a war where the enemy consists of Arabs whose leaders emphatically think in terms of “black and white,” and who therefore imbue their warriors (as well as civilians) with the most ferocious hatred of Israel. This hatred steels Islamic warriors. Hence the IDF will have to become a virtual killing machine to stop the killing once and for all!

Israel’s victory in this war will ultimately depend on whether its General Staff is animated by the profound sense of good and evil that inspired America’s greatest generals—suffice to mention, along with Patton, William Tecumseh Sherman of Civil War fame. Both generals inspired their armies with complete confidence in the justice of their cause. Yet both pursued a war strategy that actually minimized casualties on all sides. They imbued their soldiers with the will to win and in the shortest possible time. This requires the use of overwhelming force and the uninterrupted attack.

The general who believes in the justice of his country’s cause will not shy from cruelty against Israel’s enemies because it is by means of cruelty that he can shorten the war and thus minimize bloodshed. Thus, in this war between good and evil, those Israeli generals who implement the principles of war will be our greatest humanists.

Spanish anti-Semitism is alive in the Left

by Pilar Rahola
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spain has never fulfilled its responsibility with regards to anti-Semitism - neither in the past, nor in the present . As a result, the powerful accusation by Pat Cox, president of the European Parliament, made in the March 2004 report, is hardly surprising: Spain is considered, today, the main source of incitation against Jews in Europe. The report of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, speaking about media coverage of the Middle East conflict, states: "since the stereotypes found in that coverage are the same waived against the Jews during the 1930s (killing children, controlling the world, related to money, dark intentions…), it is impossible to affirm that the anti-Israeli wave that crosses Spain is independent of an anti-Semitic content in the news". These affirmations are supported by the results Gallup has presented to the Anti-defamation League, in a recent survey: 72% of Spanish people would deport the Jews from Israel; only 12% would accept having Jewish neighbours; 69% believes Jews are too powerful and 55% attribute "dark intentions" to them that cannot be summarized. To my sadness, the study states that Cataluña and the Basque Country both show the highest levels of Jewphobia.

These are recent data published by well-respected institutions. Yet, have they worried anyone? More to the point, have they been believed, read, or were they assumed? Not only have they become wet paper but global Spain maintains stereotypes that have caused alarm in Strasbourg. Convinced of the truth of these data, the accusation I make is the following: today, Spain, is anti-Semitic once again. But this time we are a nation that is Anti-Semitic Polish style, that is to say, in Paul Landvai's words, "anti-Semites without Jews". And I say anti-Semite knowing that most of my colleagues (especially from the Left) not only don't accept the term, but find it offensive, as if anti-Semitism was the extreme right's and fanatical Catholicism’s exclusive patrimony. We know, since Martin Luther King denounced it in his "Letter to my anti-Semitic friend", that many are the camouflages of anti-Semitism, and that anti-zionism and anti-Israelism are much more bearable for some sensitive skins. But they are fed by the same source of intolerance. Of course it is alright to be a critic of Israel, and it is true that every critic cannot be accused of anti-Semitism, but there are so many warning notes that we must analyze them if we do not want to destroy our society.

The first alarm: the systematic and heartless banalization of the tragedy of the Holocaust – a banalization which does not only take place in aberrant Nazi pamphlets of late, but also in articles and declarations written mainly by progressives and prestigious intellectuals. Still echoing are , for the shame of the millions who died, Saramago's scorn of the memory of the Shoa. Not only has the venerable Nobel trivialised the only industry of extermination in human history, but his attitude begins to reflect a collective grammar. Graphic humour with Israeli leaders depicted as Nazis, accusations of genocide and Hitler-like practices when reporting any Israeli action, simple comparisons between the Holocaust and any present violent contingency… Without going further, Lopez Agudín, in this very same newspaper, raised an aberrant parallelism between Auschwitz and the prisons in Iraq. That is to say, his rightful criticism of the tortures of Iraqi prisoners, became an excuse to reduce one incomparable monstrosity -"the death of the human soul", as Claude Lanzmann defined it in his Shoa - with a deplorable chapter on torture. To banalize the Holocaust is a double moral shame: shameful to the tragic memory of Europe, and to our historic responsibility. But nothing arises from nothing. We can banalize the Holocaust today only because educating our society about the Holocaust’s tragic meaning never worried us, to the point that we localised it to a simple German question. Auschwitz was the final stop of tens of centuries of persecution against European Jews, and Spain (Isabel la Católica in hand) was the motor of the anti-Semitic hatred that has always existed in Europe. All the good, in the fields of law, literature, science, medicine, all the good that has happened to us has to do with Jewish Europe. All the bad that has happened to us has to do with anti-Jewish Europe. Nevertheless, we neither learn, nor do we assume the moral responsibility that the tragic memory would demand. From forgetfulness, banalization and oblivion are born. From forgetfulness prejudice is reborn. And through prejudice, intolerance returns.

In perfect synergy with the banalization of the Holocaust, most of our Intelligentsia practices a furious anti-Israelism that goes beyond logical criticism of Israeli actions. Along the way, not only reality is manipulated, and turned into a match between good and bad, but Jewish fault is magnified and Palestinian fault is reduced, to the point of disappearing. The trivialization of Palestinian terrorism, the fundamental enemy to their very own Palestinian cause, is the most outrageous exercise of irresponsibility of Spanish leftist thought. It is as outrageous as the selective solidarity that only cries for Palestinian victims and ignores, to the deepest scorn, Jewish ones. This happens in every aspect of this complex conflict, and propaganda is the result.
In this context of misinformation, distortion, the banalization of the Shoa takes place. If the Holocaust is made comparable to any violent action, Europe rids itself of any blame. From there it is a small step to accuse the Prime Minister of Israel of "genocide" or "Nazism", and each day the accusations go a little further. This is in spite of it being especially immoral to add to the shipwreck of genocide, the accusation of Nazism. But it is an immorality that is used, comfortably, in the fine halls of politically correct leftist thought.

Intellectuals, leftist leaders, opinion makers, I ask you – do we not have a moral responsibility that we are harming? Do we not have the responsibility to teach tolerance, and not feed old demons? Let's remember that anti-Semitism is the original school of intolerance. Do we not have the responsibility to not betray Europe’s tragic memory? We must not forget the extreme evil of the Holocaust and its unique place of horror in its murder of millions. Whenever an intellectual plays frivolously with the memory of the Shoa, no matter how good his intentions are, he is killing the victims again. It is a subtle double death, the physical death, and the forgetting of death. The trivialisation of the Holocaust not only desprives the victims of their place in history, but sends an aberrant message to society that it is not necessary to be act to prevent the long journey of hatred that made the Holocaust possible. And, finally, we abuse the responsibility of analyzing reality in truthful and non emotional terms, giving elements that serve to objectify the problem, and not turning them into doctrinarian excuses. With regard to Israel, we have replaced ideas with slogans, debates with the placards, and thought with propaganda.

The result is an irrational hatred of Israel, an absolute indifference to the implication of terrorism, and exoneration, via martyrdom, of the horrors that Palestinian terrorism perpetrates. The result is not useful even to the Palestinians themselves.

I conclude sharing Pat Cox's alarm: we are creating a new anti-Semitic doctrinarian body. Is it parallel to the classic one? No. The new anti-Semitism is leftist, it is an anti-Semitism of the elite and it is unconscious. But it exists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Pilar Rahola : Diario El Mundo. Madrid.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilar Rahola's website: © 2004 Pilar Rahola Disseny ADES STUDIO
http://www.pilarrahola.com/ [has her articles etc.]

There is a lot more from Pilar Rahola right here at The Jew in Yellow albeit somewhat duplicated and repetitive, but containing manyof her articles dealing with antisemitism at http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2007/12/hello-welcome-to-jew-in-yellow.html


[added July 3, 2008]

Here's another one of Pilar Rahola's articlles, this time dealing with Antisemite and KuKlxer David Duke abd the late, should be unlamented by Jews, "Che" Guevara.

Articles : Anti-semitism Che and a nazi, in the mirror

Two protagonists at the extremes: Ché Guevara and David Duke. Since the former appears even on designer g-strings, he needs no introduction. The latter has just landed in Spain, with his dreadful Klu Klux Klan backpack, to introduce a book of anti-semitic hate. It’s all legal in this Spain that puts democratic humorists on trial and, on the other hand, welcomes violent shit-for-brains racists. His sponsor? -- an extreme rightwing party to whom an advertising spot was granted on La Noria, of Channel Five. Gasp! Be that as it may, and as one could have guessed in this Spain that does not consider it a crime to deny the planned murder of six million Jews, we’re going to be visited by all the undesirable Nazis that infest the territory of evil. And meanwhile, a sixteen year-old boy loses his life at the hands of this same violence. To be tolerant with intolerance is an act of violence. Haven’t we learned yet? More rage. I feel a deep revulsion.On the other side of the mirror, the protagonist has a different outline and ideological form, the opposite extreme of the American racist. Nevertheless, his elevation bothers me as well. I know -- every lefty was raised on the myth of Ché Guevara , and his heroic halo has transfixed generations of the young who wish to change the world. My teen years, like those of so many, is a landscape with a Che poster. All the same, the fact that the Badalona Municipal Authority is spending 18,700 euros to put up a statue of Ché in the same neighborhood where for years it has been skimping on efforts that would eliminate the recurrent flooding on Australia Street is a loud embarrassment, an embarrassment that follows from a previous one -- the municipal decision to grant a subsidy to the Casal de Amigos de Cuba. Wonderful! So the democratic administration gives public money to those who defend a left wing dictatorship, and on top of that they set up a monument to a guy who felt that killing people was a legitimate form of struggle. Would they do the same with a right wing dictatorship? I don’t know, but there are some days when it’s better not to get out of bed.Tra. Joe DiFrances.
Pilar Rahola : El Periódico.

Articles : Anti-semitism
Che and a nazi, in the mirror

© 2004 Pilar Rahola Disseny ADES STUDIO
http://www.pilarrahola.com/

FIRST LADY?

A BADGE FOR "JEWS WHO WANT GUN CONTROL"















Had they lived in Germany during the 1930s, they would have applauded Hitler's forbidding guns to all but the Nazis. The result? Do Jews constantly have to be reminded that no one, nobody, not the Government, nor any authorities, can protect them when the cry of "Kill the Jews!" is raised in many quarters (Moslems, Nazis, "Aryans," etc.).
See Judaism, Nazis, and Gun Control

Jewish groups slam handgun decision
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision overturning a gun-control law is being criticized by several Jewish groups
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080627handgunsheller.html

Is it halachically "wrong" for a Jew to own a gun?
"nowhere is it written . . . "--neither in Tanakh nor Talmud. . . .


. . . gun control is not mentioned in the Tanach or Gemara > - only issues of self defense
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v14/mj_v14i36.html



A wise man once said, "For every Jew, a 22."

Although "a 45 keeps you alive," also covers the same ground, it was explained to me ("why the 22 instead of a heavier caliber?") that the 22 bullet is not suitable for ballistics (unless you leave shell casings around where markings could be tied to the weapon) as it fragments in most cases (small, high velocity lead bullet at a short distance).

The same wise man also said:
"In every generation, there are always a few who understand.
Always understand ... even if you remain among the few."
--who said that?
Answer at: http://www.masada2000.org/index.html
(upper right-hand corner)

The 45 will do a better job if you want to stop one or multiple assailants.





-30-

Also see Why are American Jews so anti-gun?

Halachic Implications of Gun Control

It _is_ appropriate to lobby against any law which would prohibit Jews from observing Halacha. If a Jew wishes to support a ban on carrying handguns for self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to ensure that adequate alternative means of self-defense are available. Consider New York City -- the only U.S. city where Jews have a major input on local laws. What kinds of weapons are _permitted_ for its residents to carry? Not knives, not clubs, nor even something as innocuous as pepper spray. Can anyone claim that a life-threatening criminal attack in N.Y.C. is outside the realm of reasonable possibilities? It seems apparent that the average New York Jew must choose between obeying local secular law versus being prepared to observe the mitzvah of killing the pursuer. This situation has been typical of our experience in Golus. We do not expect our lives to be threatened on any given day, so we obey the law of the land and go out unarmed. If, G-d forbid, we are attacked, our obligation to defend ourselves is voided due to our incapability. But it is outrageous that a Jew should _ask_ the government to put us in this position! It's like a Jewish prisoner asking the warden _not_ to offer kosher food -- so he can enjoy the heter of eating tref when kosher food is unavailable. Some may cite Pikuach Nefesh to defend their support for handgun bans, arguing that we will be safer with such a law than under a policy permitting reasonable self-defense. The halachic correctness of this argument depends entirely on whether the gun control measure in question will indeed incapacitate criminals rather than merely inconvenience them. Thus, the potential effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of gun-control has tremendous halachic implications. I find the arguments supporting handgun bans poorly reasoned, and the statistics cited deceptive (but the moderator has asked me not to discuss the details in this group). I consider the handgun to be the only reasonable weapon which puts a physically small or weak person at parity with a criminal who is powerful and very likely armed. Therefore, to fulfill what I consider to be my Halachic responsibilities, I and my wife have acquired handguns and taken courses in their use. We are investigating the possibility of acquiring concealed-carry permits. We will oppose any law or political candidate who would interfere in our observance of this mitsvah.
F.S. New Orleans, Louisiana USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v14/mj_v14i36.html