By Jonathan Rosenblum @ http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
For those inclined to see the workings of Divine Providence in human history, the special affinity of the American people for Israel provides a happy example. If Israel could have only one consistent ally in the world, it would surely have picked the world's (still) most powerful nation. Without the United States, Israel would be hard pressed to obtain the weapons needed to defend itself....
Senator Obama's most fervent support has come from the university campuses and cultural elites — where attitudes tend most to resemble those of Western Europeans and where scorn for those who "cling to guns or religion" runs rampant. The campuses also happen to be the redoubts of the greatest hostility to Israel....
Read the full article HERE
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
World Government to Reign in "Fascist" America?
Another interesting article from FrontPage Mag written by Joseph Klein. Klein is right in sounding this warning and his observations are spot on...
Richard Falk, who justly earned his way into David Horowitz’s book The Professors as one of the “101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” now lectures more august audiences at the United Nations. Appointed as the United Nations Human Rights Council to serve as its special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories in March, Falk has in a matter of months lived down to his opponents’ worst expectations. In addition to The Professors, Falk should be added to a list of the most biased anti-Israel UN human rights investigators, not an easy list to make at the UN. He believes Israel, and the United States, are guilty of Nazi-like barbarism, which the United Nations decries even as it dismisses investigations into North Korea and Cuba. Falk would abolish the alleged democratic atrocities by establishing a “world government” in which foreigners could overturn U.S. policies through “binding referenda.”
And:
He has a plan to make sure Nazism never breaks out again: allowing foreigners to veto the American voter.
Falk is a strong advocate for “world government” and “global law.” The United Nations General Assembly, in his view, does not have enough power to legislate and enforce its decisions. He suggests the possibility of forming a Global Parliament, either operating as a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly or taking some more autonomous character within the UN system.” He has recommended consideration of “allowing persons outside the United States to challenge policy affecting their wellbeing by way of binding referenda or even by casting votes in national elections held within the United States.”
Read the full article HERE
Richard Falk, who justly earned his way into David Horowitz’s book The Professors as one of the “101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” now lectures more august audiences at the United Nations. Appointed as the United Nations Human Rights Council to serve as its special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories in March, Falk has in a matter of months lived down to his opponents’ worst expectations. In addition to The Professors, Falk should be added to a list of the most biased anti-Israel UN human rights investigators, not an easy list to make at the UN. He believes Israel, and the United States, are guilty of Nazi-like barbarism, which the United Nations decries even as it dismisses investigations into North Korea and Cuba. Falk would abolish the alleged democratic atrocities by establishing a “world government” in which foreigners could overturn U.S. policies through “binding referenda.”
And:
He has a plan to make sure Nazism never breaks out again: allowing foreigners to veto the American voter.
Falk is a strong advocate for “world government” and “global law.” The United Nations General Assembly, in his view, does not have enough power to legislate and enforce its decisions. He suggests the possibility of forming a Global Parliament, either operating as a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly or taking some more autonomous character within the UN system.” He has recommended consideration of “allowing persons outside the United States to challenge policy affecting their wellbeing by way of binding referenda or even by casting votes in national elections held within the United States.”
Read the full article HERE
Sunday, October 26, 2008
US Special Forces Launch Raid Inside Syria
Oct. 27….(Breitbart) US military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as “serious aggression.” A US military official said the raid by Special Forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military’s reach. “We are taking matters into our own hands,” the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids. The attack came just days after the commander of US forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an “uncontrolled” gateway for fighters entering Iraq. A Syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said. The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children. A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh said some of the helicopters landed and troops exited the aircraft and fired on a building. He said the aircraft flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. The witness spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, Syria’s Foreign Ministry said it summoned the charges d’affaires of the United States and Iraq to protest against the strike. “Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this aggression and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch and immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria,” the government statement said. The area targeted is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency. Iraqi travelers making their way home across the border reported hearing many explosions, said Farhan al-Mahalawi, mayor of Qaim. On Thursday, US Maj. Gen. John Kelly said Iraq’s western borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries but that Syria was a “different story.” “The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side,” Kelly said. “We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement.” He added that the US was helping construct a sand berm and ditches along the border. “There hasn’t been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years,” Kelly said. The foreign fighters network sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party, the US military official said. He said that while American forces have had considerable success, with Iraqi help, in shutting down the “rat lines” in Iraq, and with foreign government help in North Africa, the Syrian node has been out of reach. “The one piece of the puzzle we have not been showing success on is the nexus in Syria,” the official said. The White House in August approved similar special forces raids from Afghanistan across the border of Pakistan to target al-Qaida and Taliban operatives. At least one has been carried out. The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been cut to an estimated 20 a month, a senior US military intelligence official told the Associated Press in July. That’s a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official. Ninety percent of the foreign fighters enter through Syria, according to US intelligence. Foreigners are some of the most deadly fighters in Iraq, trained in bombmaking and with small-arms expertise and more likely to be willing suicide bombers than Iraqis. Foreign fighters toting cash have been al-Qaida in Iraq’s chief source of income. They contributed more than 70 percent of operating budgets in one sector in Iraq, according to documents captured in September 2007 on the Syrian border. Most of the fighters were conveyed through professional smuggling networks, according to the report. Iraqi insurgents seized Qaim in April 2005, forcing US Marines to recapture the town the following month in heavy fighting. The area became secure only after Sunni tribes in Anbar turned against al-Qaida in late 2006 and joined forces with the Americans
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
US Intelligence: Iran Will Have First Nuclear Bomb by February 2009
Oct. 22….(DEBKA) US intelligence’s amended estimate, that Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in, is disclosed by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources as having been relayed as a guideline to the Middle East teams of both presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. The information prompted the assertion by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden in Seattle Sunday, Oct. 19: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.” McCain retorted Tuesday, Oct. 21: “America does not need a president that needs to be tested. I’ve been tested. I was aboard the Enterprise off the coast of Cuba. I’ve been there.”) DEBKAfile’s military sources cite the new US timeline: By late January, 2009, Iran will have accumulated enough low-grade enriched uranium (up to 5%) for its “break-out” to weapons grade (90%) material within a short time. For this, the Iranians have achieved the necessary technology. In February, they can move on to start building their first nuclear bomb. US intelligence believes Tehran has the personnel, plans and diagrams for a bomb and has been running experiments to this end for the past two years. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna last week asked Tehran to clarify recent complex experiments they conducted in detonating nuclear materials for a weapon, but received no answer. The same US evaluation adds that the Iranian leadership is holding off its go-ahead to start building the bomb until the last minute so as to ward off international pressure to stop at the red line. This development together with the galloping global economic crisis will force the incoming US president to go straight into decision-making without pause on Day One in the Oval Office. He will have to determine which urgent measures can serve best for keeping a nuclear bomb out of the Islamic republic’s hands, diplomatic or military, and how to proceed if those measures fail. His knowledge of the challenge colored Sen. Biden’s additional words in Seattle: “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” Israel’s political and military leaders also face a tough dilemma that can no longer be put off of whether to strike Iran’s nuclear installations militarily in the next three months between US presidencies before the last window closes, or take a chance on coordination with the next president. Waiting for the “international community” to do the job of stopping Iran, as urged by governments headed by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, and strongly advocated Tzipi Livni, foreign minister and would-be prime minister, has been a washout. Iran stands defiantly on the threshold of a nuclear weapon.
Syria's Choice
From FrontPage Magazine:
Syria's Choice
By Hassan MneimnehThe Weekly Standard Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Seven years after 9/11, Washington policymakers remain fundamentally confused about the nature of Islamist extremism, the ideas behind it and the states that manipulate it. In few places is this problem more obvious than in the U.S. relationship with the secular Assad regime in Syria.
After the most recent iteration of the on-again off-again Washington-Damascus relationship—a meeting between the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice—Muallem described the meeting as a "positive beginning of a dialogue" while the state-controlled Syrian press heralded it as the United States coming to its senses and joining Syria in the fight against the common threat of radical Islamism. Never mind that some of those radical extremists threatening us are in the employ of the Assad regime and may well have been behind a recent bombing in Damascus that killed 17. Never mind, also, that the price that Syria is actively seeking for its promise of cooperation is the restoration of its influence on Lebanon—a dominion that it had to abandon in the aftermath of the Cedar Revolution of 2005.
Read the full article here.
Syria's Choice
By Hassan MneimnehThe Weekly Standard Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Seven years after 9/11, Washington policymakers remain fundamentally confused about the nature of Islamist extremism, the ideas behind it and the states that manipulate it. In few places is this problem more obvious than in the U.S. relationship with the secular Assad regime in Syria.
After the most recent iteration of the on-again off-again Washington-Damascus relationship—a meeting between the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice—Muallem described the meeting as a "positive beginning of a dialogue" while the state-controlled Syrian press heralded it as the United States coming to its senses and joining Syria in the fight against the common threat of radical Islamism. Never mind that some of those radical extremists threatening us are in the employ of the Assad regime and may well have been behind a recent bombing in Damascus that killed 17. Never mind, also, that the price that Syria is actively seeking for its promise of cooperation is the restoration of its influence on Lebanon—a dominion that it had to abandon in the aftermath of the Cedar Revolution of 2005.
Read the full article here.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Dire Consequences
By Dr. Earl Tilford
FrontPageMagazine.com
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Economic and political destabilization ranked high on al-Qaeda’s list of strategic objectives in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington, DC. In addition to killing nearly 3,000 innocent people, the attacks immediately inflicted over $80 billion dollars in damage, sent the airline industry into a tailspin, and forced the United States to undertake the economic burden of a long war. Nevertheless, al-Qaeda failed to seriously destabilize the American economic and political systems. The current economic crisis, however, could foster critical mass not only in the American and world economies but also put the world democracies in jeopardy.
Some experts maintain that a U.S. government economic relief package might lead to socialism. I am not an economist, so I will let that issue sit. However, as a historian I know what happened when the European and American economies collapsed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The role of government expanded exponentially in Europe and the United States. The Soviet system, already well entrenched in socialist totalitarianism, saw Stalin tighten his grip with the doctrine of “socialism in one country,” which allowed him to dispense with political opposition real and imagined. German economic collapse contributed to the Nazi rise to power in 1933. The alternatives in the Spanish civil war were between a fascist dictatorship and a communist dictatorship. Dictatorships also proliferated across Eastern Europe. In the United States, the Franklin Roosevelt administration vastly expanded the role and power of government. In Asia, Japanese militarists gained control of the political process and then fed Japan’s burgeoning industrial age economy with imperialist lunges into China and Korea; the first steps toward the greatest conflagration in the history of mankind … so far … World War II ultimately resulted. That’s what happened the last time the world came to a situation resembling critical mass. Scores upon scores of millions of people died.
Could it happen again? Bourgeois democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system. Without it, the role of the individual shrinks as government expands. At the very least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs necessary for implementation. Bureaucracies, once established, inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will this lead to “socialism” as some conservative economic prognosticators suggest? Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship. If the American economy collapses, especially in wartime, there remains that possibility. And if that happens the American democratic era may be over. If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could crumble.
A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nations—the world powers of North America, Europe, and Asia—need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very quickly.
The United States is at the epicenter as the world edges toward critical mass. And the ship of state appears rudderless. The current crisis is as much one of leadership as economics. This is the time for statesmen to come to the fore. So far, political leaders, anxious to preserve and to advance partisan agendas, have engaged in behavior bordering on the infantile. Whether or not men and women of selfless character, statesmen devoted to the preservation of the nation and its precious but always fragile democracy will emerge, remains unclear. But it is clear that if our leadership fails at this critical juncture, the fate of our nation and the world lies in the balance. At this point of critical mass, while rife with politicians, we are impoverished for leadership.
Dr. Earl Tilford is Professor of History at Grove City College and enjoyed an extensive military career in the U.S. Air Force. He is former director of research at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute, where he worked on a project that looked at future terrorist threats. He also authored three books on the Vietnam War and co-edited one book on Operation Desert Storm.
FrontPageMagazine.com
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Economic and political destabilization ranked high on al-Qaeda’s list of strategic objectives in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington, DC. In addition to killing nearly 3,000 innocent people, the attacks immediately inflicted over $80 billion dollars in damage, sent the airline industry into a tailspin, and forced the United States to undertake the economic burden of a long war. Nevertheless, al-Qaeda failed to seriously destabilize the American economic and political systems. The current economic crisis, however, could foster critical mass not only in the American and world economies but also put the world democracies in jeopardy.
Some experts maintain that a U.S. government economic relief package might lead to socialism. I am not an economist, so I will let that issue sit. However, as a historian I know what happened when the European and American economies collapsed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The role of government expanded exponentially in Europe and the United States. The Soviet system, already well entrenched in socialist totalitarianism, saw Stalin tighten his grip with the doctrine of “socialism in one country,” which allowed him to dispense with political opposition real and imagined. German economic collapse contributed to the Nazi rise to power in 1933. The alternatives in the Spanish civil war were between a fascist dictatorship and a communist dictatorship. Dictatorships also proliferated across Eastern Europe. In the United States, the Franklin Roosevelt administration vastly expanded the role and power of government. In Asia, Japanese militarists gained control of the political process and then fed Japan’s burgeoning industrial age economy with imperialist lunges into China and Korea; the first steps toward the greatest conflagration in the history of mankind … so far … World War II ultimately resulted. That’s what happened the last time the world came to a situation resembling critical mass. Scores upon scores of millions of people died.
Could it happen again? Bourgeois democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system. Without it, the role of the individual shrinks as government expands. At the very least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs necessary for implementation. Bureaucracies, once established, inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will this lead to “socialism” as some conservative economic prognosticators suggest? Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship. If the American economy collapses, especially in wartime, there remains that possibility. And if that happens the American democratic era may be over. If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could crumble.
A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nations—the world powers of North America, Europe, and Asia—need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very quickly.
The United States is at the epicenter as the world edges toward critical mass. And the ship of state appears rudderless. The current crisis is as much one of leadership as economics. This is the time for statesmen to come to the fore. So far, political leaders, anxious to preserve and to advance partisan agendas, have engaged in behavior bordering on the infantile. Whether or not men and women of selfless character, statesmen devoted to the preservation of the nation and its precious but always fragile democracy will emerge, remains unclear. But it is clear that if our leadership fails at this critical juncture, the fate of our nation and the world lies in the balance. At this point of critical mass, while rife with politicians, we are impoverished for leadership.
Dr. Earl Tilford is Professor of History at Grove City College and enjoyed an extensive military career in the U.S. Air Force. He is former director of research at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute, where he worked on a project that looked at future terrorist threats. He also authored three books on the Vietnam War and co-edited one book on Operation Desert Storm.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Sarkozy: “Arabic Is the Language of the Future”
From the desk of Tiberge on Tue, 2008-10-14 11:14
The French government is strongly advocating the teaching of Arabic language and civilization in French schools. Not surprising, considering the number of Arabs and Muslims in France, and the unctuous deference with which they are treated by officials, beginning notably with Nicolas Sarkozy, who cannot praise enough the splendor of Arabic contributions to the world.
The French National Assembly was the scene of a meeting earlier this month of the first Conference on the Teaching of Arabic Language and Culture, attended by a variety of interested parties. There was much wearisome blather about the need for "dialogue."
In his message to the participants, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Arabic the "language of the future, of science and of modernity," and expressed the hope that "more French people share in the language that expresses great civilizational and spiritual values."
"We must invest in the Arabic language (because) to teach it symbolizes a moment of exchange, of openness and of tolerance, (and it) brings with it one of the oldest and most prestigious civilizations of the world. It is in France that we have the greatest number of persons of Arabic and Muslim origin. Islam is the second religion of France," Sarkozy reminded his listeners.
He proceeded to enumerate the various "advances in terms of diversity," the increase in Muslim sections of cemeteries, the training of imams and chaplains and the appointments of ministers of diverse backgrounds.
"France is a friend of Arabic countries. We are not seeking a clash between the East and West," he affirmed, emphasizing the strong presence of Arab leaders at the founding summit of the Union for the Mediterranean, last July 13. "The Mediterranean is where our common hopes were founded. Our common sea is where the principal challenges come together: durable development, security, education and peace," added the French president.
The French government is strongly advocating the teaching of Arabic language and civilization in French schools. Not surprising, considering the number of Arabs and Muslims in France, and the unctuous deference with which they are treated by officials, beginning notably with Nicolas Sarkozy, who cannot praise enough the splendor of Arabic contributions to the world.
The French National Assembly was the scene of a meeting earlier this month of the first Conference on the Teaching of Arabic Language and Culture, attended by a variety of interested parties. There was much wearisome blather about the need for "dialogue."
In his message to the participants, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Arabic the "language of the future, of science and of modernity," and expressed the hope that "more French people share in the language that expresses great civilizational and spiritual values."
"We must invest in the Arabic language (because) to teach it symbolizes a moment of exchange, of openness and of tolerance, (and it) brings with it one of the oldest and most prestigious civilizations of the world. It is in France that we have the greatest number of persons of Arabic and Muslim origin. Islam is the second religion of France," Sarkozy reminded his listeners.
He proceeded to enumerate the various "advances in terms of diversity," the increase in Muslim sections of cemeteries, the training of imams and chaplains and the appointments of ministers of diverse backgrounds.
"France is a friend of Arabic countries. We are not seeking a clash between the East and West," he affirmed, emphasizing the strong presence of Arab leaders at the founding summit of the Union for the Mediterranean, last July 13. "The Mediterranean is where our common hopes were founded. Our common sea is where the principal challenges come together: durable development, security, education and peace," added the French president.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
March 1936 All Over Again
By Dr. Earl Tilford
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, October 10, 2008
Near the conclusion of Tuesday night’s second presidential “town-hall” style debate, a questioner from the audience asked each candidate what he would do if Iran attacked Israel. Both candidates gave somewhat vague replies, focusing on the traditionally close relationship between the United States and Israel. In any event, if Iran ever attacks Israel, other than through its Lebanon-based surrogate Hezbollah, it will be with nuclear-tipped missiles, in which case Israel will be obliterated before the United States can respond.
The more pertinent question for the candidates is, “What will you do if and when Israel carries out a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?” At that point both deterrence and appeasement will have failed.
Read the full article
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, October 10, 2008
Near the conclusion of Tuesday night’s second presidential “town-hall” style debate, a questioner from the audience asked each candidate what he would do if Iran attacked Israel. Both candidates gave somewhat vague replies, focusing on the traditionally close relationship between the United States and Israel. In any event, if Iran ever attacks Israel, other than through its Lebanon-based surrogate Hezbollah, it will be with nuclear-tipped missiles, in which case Israel will be obliterated before the United States can respond.
The more pertinent question for the candidates is, “What will you do if and when Israel carries out a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?” At that point both deterrence and appeasement will have failed.
Read the full article
Israel doesn't have much time to attack Iran
From American Thinker:
It was in October 2005 that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, first said that the "Zionist regime" must "be wiped off the face of the Earth." And it was in April 2006 that he called Israel a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live."
In the years that have since passed, the man who favors a second Holocaust and denies the occurrence of the first one has repeated these genocidal statements almost daily. These are also the years in which Iran's nuclear weapons program has proceeded exponentially. It is a program that endangers the very existence of the Jewish state.
Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister and first minister of defense, and President Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Israel has a nuclear arsenal. Michael Karpin, the author of "The Bomb in the Basement," calls Israel's nuclear arsenal the "absolute deterrent." But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the sanity to be deterred.
One often hears the argument that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can't Israel live with an Iranian bomb? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.
Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what's needed and what works. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran's nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and its command and control centers because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.
An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the postmodernist "war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century" crowd in academia and elsewhere.
But much of the criticism will be phony. In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the group say to me: "Thank God that the Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests the leadership of the Arab world?"
When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn't say so in class, he answered: "We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed."
At the news conference at which he announced Israel's destruction of the Iraqi reactor, the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ‘'despite all the condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal." He added that "Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region."
Does Israel's present prime minister have the guts to emulate Menachem Begin, and to emulate him right now? Does the Israel Defense Force have the skill to do to Iran today what it did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? Is Israel willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if it concludes that conventional weapons won't do the job? And does Israel realize that if Democratic Sen. Barak Obama wins the American presidency next month, it may never have the chance to take out its mortal foe?
There are uncertainties. But one thing is certain, however: Neither Israel's friends, nor my former Saudi students, nor Israel's other foes will ever publicly thank it for taking out the Mad Mullahs of Teheran.
Edward Bernard Glick is a professor emeritus of political science at Temple University and the author of "Between Israel and Death."
It was in October 2005 that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, first said that the "Zionist regime" must "be wiped off the face of the Earth." And it was in April 2006 that he called Israel a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live."
In the years that have since passed, the man who favors a second Holocaust and denies the occurrence of the first one has repeated these genocidal statements almost daily. These are also the years in which Iran's nuclear weapons program has proceeded exponentially. It is a program that endangers the very existence of the Jewish state.
Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister and first minister of defense, and President Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Israel has a nuclear arsenal. Michael Karpin, the author of "The Bomb in the Basement," calls Israel's nuclear arsenal the "absolute deterrent." But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the sanity to be deterred.
One often hears the argument that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can't Israel live with an Iranian bomb? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.
Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what's needed and what works. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran's nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and its command and control centers because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.
An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the postmodernist "war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century" crowd in academia and elsewhere.
But much of the criticism will be phony. In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the group say to me: "Thank God that the Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests the leadership of the Arab world?"
When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn't say so in class, he answered: "We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed."
At the news conference at which he announced Israel's destruction of the Iraqi reactor, the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ‘'despite all the condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal." He added that "Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region."
Does Israel's present prime minister have the guts to emulate Menachem Begin, and to emulate him right now? Does the Israel Defense Force have the skill to do to Iran today what it did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? Is Israel willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if it concludes that conventional weapons won't do the job? And does Israel realize that if Democratic Sen. Barak Obama wins the American presidency next month, it may never have the chance to take out its mortal foe?
There are uncertainties. But one thing is certain, however: Neither Israel's friends, nor my former Saudi students, nor Israel's other foes will ever publicly thank it for taking out the Mad Mullahs of Teheran.
Edward Bernard Glick is a professor emeritus of political science at Temple University and the author of "Between Israel and Death."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
