Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Prof. Paul Eidelberg Commentary

War and What is to be Done

Paul Eidelberg

With Turkey's outfitting the Gaza Flotilla, the war against Israel—America's most important strategic/technological ally—has entered a second stage, since Turkey is aligned with the Iranian-Syrian axis of evil whose proxies in Gaza (Hamas) and in Lebanon (Hezbollah) confront Israel in the South and in the North, while Fatah confronts Israel on the West.

To moralize and legalize in defense of Israel is preaching to the choir and distracts attention from more effective action. Wars are not won by appealing to morality and law, although brief references to morality and law can be included in a "preamble" to inform the ignorant. The emphasis should be Attack! Attack! Attack! More important and decisive than appeals to moral values and sentiment—which should be kept to a minimum—is fear (concern for one's security), self-interest (concern for one's livelihood), and independence and pugnacity (ornery human nature or dislike for those telling us what to do).

With war we must identify and focus on the enemy and the enemy's most important ally. The enemy is Islam—Islam pure and simple. Islam's most powerful agent is IRAN, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has not only vowed to wipe Israel off the map, but has also repeatedly called for DEATH TO AMERICA!

This bloody tyrant sent tens of thousands of Iranian children to their deaths by having them walk across mine fields in Iran's war with Iraq. (See Michael Ledeen, Accomplice to Evil.) Moreover, Iran has the means of stopping the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, and thereby collapsing America's as well as the world's economy. (See Richard Baer, The Devil We Know.) And then there are American scoundrels, former high-level American officials on the Saudi payroll. (See Baer, Sleeping With the Devil.)

But focus your literary weapons against Iran, with special emphasis on Iran's means of depriving the U.S. of 20 percent of its oil imports, and of stopping the flow of oil to nations on which America's economy very much depends.

As for Iran's most important ally: enter Barack Hussein Obama. When Obama bowed to Saudi king Abdullah, that gesture signaled his strategic and ideological objective: to subordinate the United States to Islam. What he repeated called the "holy Koran" in his Cairo speech conveys the religion that modulates his heart and mind—the religion revealed in words and deeds but obscured by America's leftwing dominated media.

America, along with Israel, has thus become the targets of the "Red-and-Green" Axis, the paradoxical alliance between Islam and the godless Left. This alliance is personified by Hussein Obama, a person who has no national identity—precisely the case of global Islam and the one-world oriented internationalist Left. (See David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance, and Efraim Karsh, Imperialistic Islam.)

The paradox in this alliance is easily dissolved: the target of the godless Left, evident in the writings of Marx, is none other than the Judeo-Christian heritage, the same target of imperialistic Islam! This unholy alliance between Islam and the Left must not only be exposed, as it has by David Horowitz, it must be personalized by focusing attention on its primary purveyors, Barak Hussein Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Hitler of the Middle East.

Regarding the anti-American Left, it has legions ensconced in Academia (as David Horowitz has shown in The Professors.) Do not be put off with the drivel about "academic freedom." Like Muslims, leftwing professors are using the language of democracy to undermine democracy. Americans must not be intimidated by the cognitive elite in the universities, but also avoid McCarthyism.

Suggestions:

In America: Organize—not new pro-American and pro-Israel organizations, but operational cooperation among such organizations. Think in terms of a "federal" system—a set of semi-autonomous organizations represented in a "Congress" having a common goal articulated and implemented on the international level by an "Executive."

In Israel: Form a group of eminent Israelis to bolster Netanyahu—to insist that he stand firm and not waver—that he think of his historical legacy, that he try to emulate Churchill.

To freedom-loving men and women everywhere: Never obscure or minimize the fact that we are at war, that the survival of our way of life and of our children and grandchildren are at stake.

Last but not least, pray to our Father in heaven.

A friend also suggest that, while focusing on the Islam-Left alliance,

(1) Inform Christians that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is scheduled to become part of a new Arab-Muslim state that Barack Hussein Obama mentioned in his Cairo speech.

(2) Point out that Obama and his Acorn Administration are close to Arab petro-dollars.

(3) Emphasize that the recent UN declaration on "defamations of religions" sold as defamation is really a revised blasphemy statute to repel statements against Islam.

(4) Emphasize the insidious construction of a Mosque at Ground Zero and what this signifies:

Islam’s step-by-step conquest of America and Christianity.

Comment s of Paul Eidelberg

on the resignation of veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas.

Ms. Thomas announced on Monday that she is retiring, effective immediately, in the wake of the controversy over her comments on Israel. Thomas told a rabbi at a White House event last week that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and go back to Germany and Poland."

Now get this right: Going back to Germany and Poland means going back to the crematoria.

Thomas's outrageous statement is quite compatible with, and perhaps was prompted by, the foul atmosphere surrounding Obama's treacherous anti-Israel policy. We see something of Obama's fetid mentality in Samantha Power, a member of his foreign policy team, who advocated a US invasion of Israel. Another clue to Obama's vicious mentality appears in another of his advisers, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski, a notorious anti-Semite.

To be sure, some court Jews strut in or march to the drumbeat of the of the Obama administration. They not only advocate the (absurd) two-state "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they also serve as a political cover for Obama's anti-Semitic background blatantly manifested in his gurus, such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan.

Let's not kid ourselves: The United States has a Jew-hater in the White House. As for his court Jews, no words can describe their base character.

========

[From Prof. Paul Eidelberg: The item below from Elliott Abrams—who served as a national security adviser under the Reagan and Bush administrationsconfirms what we already know, that Barack Hussein Obama is sleeping with the devil (Islam) and pursuing an anti-American, as well as an anti-Israel foreign policy. This has been repeatedly affirmed by former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

We are approaching a catastrophic war. Hence, we must formulate and implement serious countermeasures vis-à-vis the Obama administration, countermeasures addressed to the American people with a view to forcing Obama to resign from the presidency or to remove him from the White House.

With this objective in view, we must galvanize all patriotic forces in the United States to stop Obama's runaway train to another world war. Mere analysis will only lead to paralysis. Words must issue in concerted and well-organized deeds.]


Joining the Jackals
Elliott Abrams - The Weekly Standard, June 2nd, 2010

At the United Nations, a lynch mob for Israel is always just a moment away. The Islamic countries are a reliable source of venom, led by the Arab bloc; what we used to call the “non-aligned” are all aligned against Israel and happy to join the fun; and the Europeans can be counted on for hand-wringing rather than staunch resistance. Only the United States, and a few brave allies like Canada and Australia, can be counted upon to oppose diplomatic lynchings year after year; and only the United States can stop them in the Security Council.

In the American government, it is never the State Department bureaucracy that wishes to brave the endless assaults at the UN. Normally the resistance comes not from the various regional bureaus or from the International Organizations bureau, where Israel is so often viewed as a giant pain, but from the White House and sometimes (example: George Shultz) the Secretary of State.

This week the mob formed again, instantly, after the Gaza flotilla disaster, reinforced this time by the leadership of Turkey, whose language at the UN was more vicious than that used by the Arabs. As usual there was really only one question once the mob began to gather. It is the question that arose repeatedly in the Bush years—when the Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were killed by Israel, when Israel acted in Gaza, when Israel put down the intifada in the West Bank, and during the 2006 war in Lebanon and the late 2008 fighting in Gaza: would Israel stand alone, or would the United States stand with her and prevent the lynching? Would the U.S., in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memorable phrase, “join the jackals?”
This week the Obama administration answered the question: Yes we would, and Israel would stand alone. It is simple to block the kind of attack issued as a “President’s Statement” on behalf of the Council, for such a statement requires unanimity. The United States can just say “No,” and make it clear that orders have come from the White House and will not be changed. Then negotiations begin on a serious statement—or, there can be no statement at all. The killing of dozens of South Korean sailors by North Korea in an action that truly threatens the peace did not evoke the kind of action the Security Council took against Israel, proving that the UN does not always act, or act in the same way, when news flashes hit. Whether Israel is slammed depends on whether the United States is willing to take a stand.

On the Gaza flotilla, the Obama administration waffled and straddled. It agreed to a statement in which the United Nations condemned the “acts” that led to loss of life but did not say “We condemn Israel.” Presumably White House congratulated itself on this elision, but no one is fooled: the world media keep repeating that the Security Council condemned Israel, and in this case it is hard to argue. Yet it would have been simple to stop the mob had the White House wanted to. The facts were not in yet and indeed are still not in. The videos suggest that dozens of people (all Turks, it appears, but that too is not fully clear) on the boats were armed and dangerous. Reports are circulating here that some of those “peace activists” had gas masks and night vision devices, carried no identification papers, wore bullet-proof vests, and carried large amounts of cash. The background, the Hamas coup in Gaza and more than three thousand rockets into Israel from Gaza, is clear. The fact the Egypt has for three years (until the pressure mounted this week) refused to open its border to Gaza is understood at the UN. So the material was at hand to block the lynch mob and say we would accept only a statement that mourned the loss of life. We did not have to accept the word “condemn” or join in the call for another Goldstone Report.

No doubt the administration will claim it avoided a worse result, a Council resolution condemning Israel. To which the answer is, “not good enough.” The U.S. has the power to block all anti-Israel moves in the Security Council, not just some of them, and to do so without agreeing to unfair, damaging compromises.

So why did we agree to the presidential statement? The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel. Rather, its policy is one of distancing and pressure. This was evident last week at the NPT conference as well, where a final statement that singled out Israel while ignoring Iran—precisely what the Bush administration blocked in 2005—was permitted by the United States. From this perspective, it is just as well that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not make it to Washington this week, where a phony love fest would have pictured him in the Obama embrace. The entire purpose of the invitation was to “change the atmosphere” and reverse the damage done during his last visit, where photos of Netanyahu with Obama were not permitted. There were no doubt many rabbis, Jewish leaders, and Democratic party pols prepared to beam and conclude that all the troubles are behind us.

But the events at the UN this week showed that they are not, because Obama policy has not changed. This reality is sinking in fast in Jerusalem, where the UN is understood as an excellent barometer of the White House—in any administration. Does the White House accept, indeed relish, the need to defend Israel against all comers—Pakistan, Turkey, the Arabs, weak-kneed Euro-dips, UN bureaucrats? Is this understood as a chance to show what America really stands for in the world? Or is Israel seen by the president as a burden, an albatross, a complication in his grand struggle to re-position the United States as a more “progressive” power?

We got the answer, again, this past week, and so did Israelis.