Middle East Crisis
Unlike Hizbollah, Mel, Israel is not trying to kill civilians
Apart from a pint of tequila, I don’t know what got into Mel Gibson when he decided to favour the Los Angeles police with an anti-Semitic rant.
I don’t know what whacko religious convictions inspire the Aussie heart-throb, or whether he genuinely believes that the “f—— Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world”.
But whatever Mel was having the other night was powerful stuff; and, you know what, my impression is that a lot of folks across Britain are secretly having a snifter of the same. Across the country there are sober people who would never dream of calling an LA police officer “sugar tits”, or swinging like an ape from the bars of their cell. Yet these people seem to share the essentials of Mel’s analysis of the Middle East.
Come on, Blair! they write from their wisteria-clad redoubts. Come on, Straw, Cameron, Hague, and you, too, Boris Johnson! When are you all going to stop poodling and call a halt to Israeli murder? American-made Israeli helicopters are pounding villages, killing hundreds of women and children – and our politicians do nothing but wring their hands.
Look at Blair, they say with real disgust: out there in Hollywood, touting for his next job while Beirut blazes, and we all know who runs Hollywood, eh, hmmm, know what I mean? It’s a gigantic conspiracy, Boris, they say, and it is high time you did something about it.
And believe me, if I thought it would make a blind bit of difference, I would. I can see that the Israeli strategy seems to be disastrous, and is turning terrorists into martyrs. But then I don’t live in Haifa, or any of the places rocketed by the Hizbollah maniacs. These are not my relatives being killed, nor the relatives of my angry correspondents; and let us imagine that I did “denounce” Israel in full, free, frank and ferocious terms. Let us suppose that news of this stunning démarche were to reach the ears of some Katyusha victim, or some grime-streaked soldier of the Israeli Defence Force.
Never mind the mild hilarity at discovering that some obscure Tory spokesman had “denounced” Israel. If I were an Israeli, I would be astounded that any member of the British Government or Opposition felt able to criticise Israel at all.
This is a country responding, however incompetently, to direct aggression against its own people from a neighbouring failed state. It was only three years ago that we, the goody-goody British, invaded a sovereign country thousands of miles away that presented absolutely no direct threat whatever.
We, the smug British, have been responsible for what is now a full-scale civil war, and in case there is still some ass out there (such as Blair) who says this is not a civil war, let me point out that Iraqi civilian deaths are now averaging 800 a week, and the monthly casualties for June approached the levels of the American Civil War, one of the bloodiest in history.
Our strategy – Jack Straw’s strategy – for Iraq has proved to be pure carnage, and for him to criticise Israel’s strategy is laughable. All of which, of course, makes my friends even crosser. Yes, they hiss, but then we shouldn’t have gone near Iraq. It was our fault for poodling to the Americans, and we all know why the Americans wanted to invade Iraq, hmmm?
It was partly about oil, but it was also Israel, wasn’t it? It was the old Jewish lobby, eh? they say, beginning to rev up like Mel in the cell. To which I can only wearily respond that, yes, I suspect that it was a bit about oil, and, yes, I have no doubt that the Israelis were happy to see the back of Saddam Hussein.
But the only reason I supported the war was because I persuaded myself that it would be in the long-term interests of the people of Iraq, and, though that hope now looks pitiful, it has not quite died.
And whatever the frustrated ravings of Mel Gibson and my correspondents, I do not believe that all the problems of the region can be traced to Israel, and nor do I believe that if Britain were to spurn Bush, snub Condi and “denounce” Israel, we would make the slightest difference to the fate of southern Lebanon.
Of course anti-Americanism wins votes, especially if, like Jack Straw, you have a seat with a lot of Muslims. But show me how it works, this proposed spanking new “independent” British policy on Israel? Presumably we join France and Germany in their vapourings. Presumably we join the European Commission in encouraging the pouring of further squillions down the gullets of the brutal and corrupt Palestinian government.
Then what? Then nothing. The real problem in the region is not Israel, but what it represents to the Islamicists who surround it. The difference between Israel and her neighbours is that Israel is a capitalist democracy, with all the freedom and tawdriness that entails. They don’t give a monkey’s in Teheran about the fate of the poor Palestinians. Israel incarnates everything the mullahs hate, not least the spectacle of liberated womanhood that they find so appalling and so shamingly tempting.
Israel provides a focus for the resentment of a Muslim civilisation that finds itself materially and intellectually humiliated by the achievements of America and the West. Indeed, Israel provides a convenient proxy target for people in this country who loathe the Yo-Blair way America bosses us around, and who resent our enclitic status: not so much the parrot on America’s shoulder as the monkey in the pocket of an organ-grinder who is himself controlled by a vast Zionist conspiracy.
Well, let me remind Mel and all his secret British sympathisers of two last differences between Israel and the Islamicists. Whatever the hideous shambles of the past few days, it is still true, in principle, that when Israeli rockets kill civilians, they have missed their targets, and that when Hizbollah rockets kill civilians, they have scored a deliberate hit.
That is a moral difference that needs to be dinned into the skull of every saloon-bar strategist currently denouncing Israel. Finally, Mel, if you want to get wasted on tequilas and sheilas, you’re much better off in Tel Aviv than Teheran.
425 Comments
“Referendum on going to War, are you barking mad? …
Next thing you know he’d have sacked York you lunatic!”
Steven:
That’s clearly not the kind of situation I was referring to. I’m talking about invading preemtively a sovereign country which has not attacked you: i.e. Iraq.
Don’t you think that there was plenty of time (and brouhaha) for a referendum before “Shock and Awe”? Hmm?
I was simply speculating (out loud) as to how many people, exactly, were in favour of that invasion. And whether the electorate in total is now accountable — as my friend suggested. Because the UK is a democracy.
Rate This:
0 
0
Yes, we are the British, we are accountable. Saddam used to TORTURE people. We don’t TORTURE people. Imagine being TORTURED TO DEATH. Can you imagine anything worse than being TORTURED TO DEATH?
And no we probably wouldn’t have voted in favour of going to war, we’d have probably thought ‘I’m all right Jack, sod the Iraqis’.
At least the new Iraqi government do not torture people to death.
If you think about it, if Saddam did have weapons of ‘mass destruction’ that could have been launched in 45 minutes we would never have parked half the British Army on his doorstep. It’s common sense really.
Rate This:
0 
0
Have a look at George Monbiot’s research: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/08/08/israels-attack-was-premeditated/#more-1000
Rate This:
0 
0
I would like to remind ‘impeach_bush’ that we did not invade (in the Oxford English Dictionary sense) Iraq, we went in to liberate the people from an oppressive regime and a dangerous dictator, who has revealed himself (beyond any argument) to be psychotic in his ongoing court case.
The only reason that we have not left Iraq already is the same reason that we are in a ‘severe’ state of alert in this country at present. -Not the other way around!
Why don’t you just admit that Bush, although verbally morose, is one of the very few world leaders with the mettle to tackle what is (and obvious to anyone with an iota of grey matter) a very serious problem? If we don’t deal with it now, it will become very difficult to fix later. Don’t be like Ralph in the Sound of Music… Open your eyes!
Rate This:
0 
0
“Can you imagine anything worse than being TORTURED TO DEATH?”
You don’t have to shout, Steven. Being tortured to death is probably much like this:
A former CIA contractor was found guilty on Thursday of assaulting an Afghan prisoner who later died in a case that raised new questions about the treatment of detainees by U.S. interrogators …
During a trial that started on August 7, prosecutors said Passaro beat Abdul Wali so badly he pleaded to be shot to end his pain. Wali died of his injuries two days after the interrogation in June 2003.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-17T153232Z_01_N17289380_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-USA-CIA.xml
Don’t you think?
———-
“If you think about it, if Saddam did have weapons of ‘mass destruction’ that could have been launched in 45 minutes we would never have parked half the British Army on his doorstep. It’s common sense really.”
Which proves what?
Rate This:
0 
0
“we went in to liberate the people from an oppressive regime and a dangerous dictator”
Funny … I distinctly remember Blair talking about WMD and 45 minutes. Before the invasion. And it was an invasion. There are not two definitions. It was a preemtive attack — on the basis that Saddam had weapons that were a real and immediate threat to the UK. Which he didn’t. And Bush and Blair knew as much. Lies lies lies.
“Why don’t you just admit that Bush, although verbally morose, is one of the very few world leaders with the mettle to tackle what is (and obvious to anyone with an iota of grey matter) a very serious problem?”
Bush took a baseball bat to a dandlelion head – and whacked the seeds all over the world. The great thundering ass! He and his cronies should be in the Hague.
Rate This:
0 
0
You don’t have to repeat yourself.
Regime change was necessary in Iraq. I bet if Bush and Blair had used the arguement that Saddam was a war criminal and was murdering his own people the electorates of the USA and UK would have said ‘so what?’.
Like Mr Wallace says, Bush has the nerve and the determination to tackle the problems of the Middle East and the problem of international terrorism. Sanctions against Iraq were not sustainable. Iraq now has the chance to rebuild and Iraqis the chance for lasting peace.
Unfortunately the regimes in Iran and Syria seem to want to stifle democratic progress in Iraq. Are they afraid of the competition? Perhaps further regime change is needed. Look how the French have behaved. They are only committing 200 troops to Lebanon and after all that fuss they made. Bangladesh have committed 2,000 and they have no defensive interest in that part of the Middle East and are a poor developing country with a possibly bloody election coming up in January.
France’s behaviour towards the NATO in the War on Terror has been appalling. If they had joined the coalition of the willing in the first place I’m sure things would be a lot better than they are in Iraq.
What are France more interested in doing? Stuffing up the Eurofighter project and sneaking around the Gulf touting their Rafale fighter jet. France, Iran and Syria should hang their heads in shame at the suffering they have caused to the Iraqi people.
Rate This:
0 
0
Forget it impeach_bush, Steven_L and his mates are semi-literate morons with the social conscience of an incontinent chimp in a caravan.
You’re wasting your time. Even a dimwit like Prescott understands the calibre of George W Bush but these cretins don’t. As for Johnson. His statements above show what an ignoble ass the man is in reality. Hope he loses his seat if for no better reason than being a vacuous philanderer.
And ‘radsoft’, you’re obviously a pseudonym for one of these aforementioned ball-less ‘juankers’; the only question is which one. Jack Ramsey or PaulD would be highest on my suspect list.
I’ve just joined the army. Next stop Iraq presumably so I’ll be able to comment on this subject with the sure and certain knowledge of first hand experience as opposed to the sickeningly belligerent rhetoric of G W Bush (and his neo-Conservative, white livered groupies).
Nice talking to you raincoaster, although why you maintain a presence on this site of right w(h)ingers is more of a mystery.
Phil
Rate This:
0 
0
You’ve joined the army? Wow. Good luck to you, man. I hope you never have to use half your training. And chin up: you could end up in Lebanon, if the UK agrees to send forces to support UNFIL, as they are being asked to do.
Why do I stay here? Because, whatever its limitations, it is still the best place I know of for me to talk to people who are intelligent but who don’t think the same way I do. Nobody gains anything from preaching to the choir.
Besides, they send me free stuff and as a socialist, I’m all about the free stuff.
Rate This:
0 
0
Did good ol’ Jack Ramsey ever return to answer those questions put to him?? I’m too tired now to read 384 comments.
Phil: Good luck and take care. Unlike raincoaster, I don’t necessarily see Lebanon as an easy option, but better than Basra … Come back and talk to us when you can.
Rate This:
0 
0
Oh hey, don’t misunderstand me. It’s not an easy option, but Iraq is looking like a box canyon surrounded by hostiles right now. I was channelling Beckett, which is never a good idea when trying to make the best of the situation.
Rate This:
0 
0
“It’s not an easy option, but Iraq is looking like a box canyon surrounded by hostiles right now”
Indeed … I hope Blair is proud of the general outcome. And Lebanon is not over by any stretch of the imagination — not with Israeli commandos breaking a very recent ceasefire, while the White House fiddles and refuses to condemn. I get so angry …
Why I bother, given what Seymour Hersh has written (probably accurately) I have no idea.
I’ll go and have a cup of tea, raincoaster. The omnipotential remedy.
Rate This:
0 
0
Hey, impeach_bush, check this out and have a good laugh:
http://www.boris-johnson.com/education/2006/08/boris_johnson_mp_student_compl.php#comment-17782
Rate This:
0 
0
Thanks for the smile, TS.
Is anyone else having trouble getting this site in the past few days? I’m not talking about this particular page (with so many comments on it).
I mean the main site.
Rate This:
0 
0
Yes, it was completely unavailable for me on what was for me Friday night and for you Saturday daytime. Lasted several hours.
Rate This:
0 
0
If you can’t get on here and rant at Boris, go onto raincoasters blog and rant at her instead
Rate This:
0 
0
LOL!
I’ll keep it in mind, Steven.
Rate This:
0 
0
This is the 394th comment!
(just thought I’d mention it)
Rate This:
0 
0
Yes, I think that’s a record. My Coalition of the Willing post on my own blog got 37 comments and I got forum comments commenting on how many comments I got!
Rate This:
0 
0
I have been reading the articles on Michael Portillo’s site. It’s a real shame that he isn’t next in line to be Prime Minister.
He seems like a real straight shooter as well as being a compassionate and kind man.
http://www.michaelportillo.co.uk/
Rate This:
0 
0
Portillo is quite cool but he’s got no blog, just some funky piano music. I did like the guy as a politician and and he writes well. But until he gets a blog and shows that he can take it as well as give it I’ll not be on his website.
On the other hand if he does get a blog I’ll be the first to start pestering him.
By the way President whats his face of Iran has a blog now. Maybe I can sort out this uranium enrichment thingy with a bit of ‘diplomacy’?
Rate This:
0 
0
Right. Cuz you’ve made such great strides over in my comments section. Is there a country you haven’t declared war on yet? Denmark maybe…but they’re on the list.
Rate This:
0 
0
LOL! The pair of you are a hoot. Thanks for sending me to bed with a laugh.
‘Night all
Rate This:
0 
0
I want the 400th comment.
Rate This:
0 
0
You got it, baby! I wonder if there’s a prize for that.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘Is there a country you haven’t declared war on yet? Denmark maybe…but they’re on the list.’ (raincoaster)
Denmark are not in need of regime change at present. Anyway regime change is not about war, it’s about bringing freedom and democracy to parts fo the world that only know tyranny and oppression.
Talking of regime change, president whats his face of Iran was testing his rockets last night and the Ayatollah wants to continue his uranium enrichment. They’ve also turned away IAEA inspectors away from their enrichment facilities.
In retrospect you can’t blame Israel for wanting to carry out this damage limitation exercise to stop Iran and Syria sending supplies and arms to Hezbollah should NATO and Israel have to go to war with Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities.
Iran won’t have a cats chance in hell of flying over Iraqi airspace to bomb Israel without being raptored and their rocket technology is probably still out of range of Israel, so they will try to attack Israel through Hezbollah I would guess.
Hezbollah are handing out Iranian cash to civilians in the South to buy support and loyalty. Shame the French couldn’t get off their backsides and get some troops in there. Looks like the Italians are going to have to lead the UN force after all.
Rate This:
0 
0
“regime change is not about war”
Tell that to the 60,000 – 100,000 (or more) Iraqis who have died so far, Steven.
And are you not aware that to attack a country in order to bring about regime change is illegal?
“Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein’s alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law. Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, ‘regime change cannot be the objective of military action’.”
– British Attorney General’s Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War, March 7, 2003
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm
Rate This:
0 
0
Here’s a great one with 420 comments!
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
Not such a big deal for this side of the pond, but in the USA … My god. BushCo rewrite history.
Rate This:
0 
0
I should have explained.
A July Harris Poll reported that 50% of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country, and that 64% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.
The video at the above link has the headline:
“Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11″
Cool as a breeze.
Rate This:
0 
0
Yeah, Bush is always good for a laugh.
“Mission Accomplished!”
A total thigh-slapper!
Rate This:
0 
0
But what mission was accomplished, raincoaster?
If it was lining his and his buddies’ pockets and/or putting US diplomatic relations back 100 years, “mission accomplished!” indeed.
Full marks to the neo-cons, shame their economy’s about to implode.
Rate This:
0 
0
It is.
Rate This:
0 
0
Just now, prizes are for content not quantity on the ‘back from holiday’ thread so keep comming with those ideas folks.
There were some technical probs with the site but they were noticed and dealt with.
Rate This:
0 
0
What about the problems with the policy? I mean, doing better than Labour isn’t setting a high enough standard, if you’re asking me.
Rate This:
0 
0
I agree raincoaster, I think we’d all set that as a minimum requirement.
Rate This:
0 
0
How about a ‘mock referendum’ on Irans nuclear ambitions. (Steven_L August 15, 2006 05:39 PM)
My own preference is for option g:
g) Make sure Iran gets nukes as quickly as poss.
Every time some country or other is about to acquire nuclear weapons, any number of flagellant doomsayers come howling and wailing about the impending end of the world. But as soon as they’ve actually got them, it all gets forgotten. Nobody seems to be at all worried that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
The same will be true of Iran. The day that President IMeanJihad explodes the big one out in the Indian ocean in front of the US 6th Fleet, an awful lot of problems will go away. America will abandon all plans for bombing/invading Iran and stealing its oil. Israel will find that it at last has a nuclear counterforce on its doorstep, and will learn that it can no longer kick its Arab neighbours in the teeth whenever it feels like it, and will have to learn to negotiate with them instead. Peace will descend on the region, because once Mutual Assured Destruction has arrived, war will cease to be a viable option for anyone. Perhaps the Palestinians might even see their condition improve at last. And President IMeanJihad will metamorphose overnight into a statesman, feted in London and Washington.
And I for one will breathe a sigh of relief. It is out of the current imbalance of military power in the Middle East that all its recent wars originate.
Rate This:
0 
0
What about those damn Ayatollahs Idlex, I reckon they have to lose the Ayatollahs before they get nukes.
Rate This:
0 
0
I reckon they have to lose the Ayatollahs before they get nukes.
Why? That’s a bit like saying that the Soviet Union could only have nukes once it abandoned communism. Or China Mao’s Little Red Book. Or India all its multiple religions. None of these things happened, and the world is none the worse for it.
Personally, I’m not in the least worried about the Ayatollahs. To the best of my knowledge Islam has always had them, a bit like Christianity has Archbishops. And from what I have been reading for the last four or five years, it’s not been the ayatollahs who’ve been the problem. They are generally conservatives, rather than radicals.
And Osama bin Laden was no ayatollah.
Rate This:
0 
0
They block democratic reform on a basis that it is ‘unislamic’. Thats why.
Before the last football world cup there was a national outcry in Iran in favour of women being allowed to watch mens football. The president backed it the Ayatollahs blocked it because women shouldn’t be allowed to see mens bare legs and arms.
No religious theocratic regime should be allowed nukes. Add to that they stone people, hang juviniles, have no respect for womens rights, hang homosexuals and have executed people, and journalists, for daring to speak out against their fundamentalist sh’ia Islamic codes and I think the case for them not having nukes speaks for itself.
He even claimed that ‘human rights, are a weapon in the hands of our enemies to fight Islam.’
Anyway, the way they harp on about Israel I reckon Israel will bomb their nuclear facilities if the international community cannot stop them first.
Rate This:
0 
0
It’s called a ‘social taboo’ Steven_L.
Britain has them too. If you go out with your dick on display the police will arrest and charge you. Iran is somewhat more conservative on this issue but not much more than, say, Victorian England. Streakers in England still get arrested. It’s just a matter of scope.
That doesn’t make it undemocratic.
Rate This:
0 
0
“And I for one will breathe a sigh of relief. It is out of the current imbalance of military power in the Middle East that all its recent wars originate”.
Probably one of the most ignorant and stupid comments I’ve ever heard about the Middle East.
The article below by Alan Caruba from http://www.anxietycenter.com is more in line with reality of the situation……………
July 26, 2006, Volume 8, No. 30
Do it now or Do it later?
We are beginning to see the national debate about what to do in the Middle East shape up into fairly specific sides. I call them the “Do it now” crowd and the “Do it later” crowd.
One can cite history to support either side. The “Do it now” crowd these days are called “neoconservatives” and they are led by people like Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a respected forum that makes ordinary Republicans look like wimps. Arguing for “Do it later” is George Wills, a respected conservative Washington Post columnist.
It should be noted that there is also a “Let’s not do anything” or a “Let’s run away” crowd who are called liberals and/or Democrats.
Maybe it’s just a trick of my imagination, but I seem to recall Americans of all descriptions just loving those images on television after 9-11 of the U.S. bombing the hell out of Afghanistan’s Tora Bora region where Osama bin Laden was said to be hiding or, better still, driving our tanks into downtown Baghdad. Later we found Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole in the ground.
Perhaps the most powerful argument for “Doing it now” is the fact that it’s been five years since 9/11 and the U.S. has not experienced another comparable attack. Keeping al Qaeda on the run, killing its leaders, and playing havoc with its funding was, in retrospect, probably a good idea.
Now the images on television are of war in Israel and Lebanon. Israel has been the subject of attacks since the day it declared its independence in 1948. It took awhile for the message to sink in, but its neighbors eventually figured out that massing armies on its borders was a very bad idea. They switched to a low-level war involving suicide bombers and rockets. Imagine how long we would patiently deal with Canada or Mexico if they were rocketing our cities and towns?
The “Do it now” crowd is now rooting for Israel to get rid of Hezbollah in Lebanon; mostly Palestinians who took up residence there after previously losing encounters with Israel and Jordan. First thing they did, of course, was to lay waste to Lebanon with a fifteen-year civil war pitting Muslims against Christians. Having no idea what peace is, other than the total destruction of Israel, Palestinians and other Arabs are once again learning what a bad idea it is to provoke yeshiva boys.
In Gaza, Hamas–another group of unhappy Palestinians–is also getting shot up by the Israelis. The Israeli’s “Do it now” crowd has concluded that waiting around for peace with Palestinians is a bad idea and a higher level of payback may prove palliative.
All of which brings us to our “Do it later” crowd who advise that waiting is just as good an idea, particularly as regards Iran who everyone knows is developing its own nuclear weapons capability. By way of a reminder, it was Iranians who in 1979 invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran, seized our diplomats, and held them hostage for 444 days. It can be argued that most Iranians are being held hostage by the mullahs, but the funding and arming of Hezbollah comes from Iran.
The “Do it later” crowd always proudly points to how we patiently waited for the former Soviet Union to implode. The problem with that argument is that we also engaged in several proxy wars with them. Owing to Red China’s intervention, the best the U.S. could achieve was a stalemate in Korea and now we are stuck with a loony dictator in the north who has missiles and nukes.
Then there was that nastiness in Vietnam. Despite that loss the U.S. stayed busy sending troops to various places for the purpose of peacekeeping or swatting bad guys in Grenada, Panama, and Haiti. In 1983 Hezbollah blew up several hundred U.S. Marines who were in Beirut on a peacekeeping mission.
After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we funded and equipped Muslim holy warriors to drive out the Russians, thus helping to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union. The Muslims, however, became al Qaeda and showed their gratitude by destroying the World Trade Center, flying a commercial jet into the Pentagon, and killing some 3,000 Americans.
The problem with waiting for Iran to become a nuclear power is that the leaders of Iran keep saying crazy things and promising to do crazy things. Even Arabs, no slouches when it comes to crazy, think the Persian, albeit Muslim, Iranians are really crazy.
So, while the warnings and recommendations of the “Do it later” crowd sound like a good idea, they rarely are. History is filled with examples of why “Do it now” is a better idea because failure to respond to Big Trouble almost always results in Even Bigger Trouble.
Every generation of Americans has had to learn this lesson. The nation has always been sharply divided over questions of war. This is what we pay Presidents to decide. After 9/11, we wanted the President to punish al Qaeda and, somewhat reluctantly, we agreed to his getting rid of a murderous despot in Iraq. Then we wanted that war to be over in two weeks.
History is rarely so accommodating. Wars tend to be very messy and this is especially true of the years after victory is declared. Militarily, we are still in Europe since the end of World War II in 1945. We are still in South Korea since 1953.
War is transformative and, even the most cursory look back at the past half-century or so reveals that the U.S. has benefited itself and much of the world by opposing evil. Wherever the forces of evil may be and whomever they might call themselves, we still need to be able to “Do it now” because power-crazed lunatics will always find an excuse to make trouble.
As we debate whether to “Do it now” or “Do it later” regarding the Iranian mullahs, perhaps we should recall British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who, after negotiating with Adolph Hitler, returned home to proclaim “peace in our time.”
There is no substitute for victory
As this is written, George W. Bush is the subject of mockery and disdain, but sixmonths after the liberation of Baghdad by American and British forces, on November 6, 2003, he reminded the nation that “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe–because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.”
On May 12, 1962, one of the greatest generals of World War II returned to West Point to deliver a farewell speech. Douglas MacArthur spoke as a soldier of one era to the young soldiers who would take up the duty of defending the nation. He told them, “Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor, country.”
“Others,” MacArthur said, “will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle.”
Today, there is no lack of controversial issues and no lack of enemies who challenge our nation and the values of Western civilization on which it is based. Those values began 2,500 years ago with a tribe of people, the Hebrews who entered into a covenant with a God they deemed to be the creator and lord of all mankind.
Take away the Jews and there is no Judaism. Take away Judaism and there is no Jesus and no Christianity. There would have been no Diaspora and no Renaissance, no Reformation and no Enlightenment. The only constant to which one can point is the Jews. Empires and Nations rose and fell, but always, always there were the Jews, keeping the covenant, observing the laws, lighting the Sabbath candles, reading from the Torah, and yearning to return to Jerusalem and their promised land.
Perhaps the most astonishing thing that occurred in the twentieth century was that return, that resurrection, of Israel.
On May 14, 1948 Israel’s independence was declared. The Arab response was war. Israel fought again for its survival in 1967 when adjacent Arab nations attacked. Again in 1973, on the eve of Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days of Judaism, Israel was attacked. Each time it successfully fought off the Arabs. In 1977, Menachem Begin became Prime Minister of Israel and in 1978 he would share the Nobel Peace Prize with President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt as the result of their peace accords. Sadat’s efforts for peace were rewarded with assassination.
Begin was well known to those early, first Israelis. He had served in the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an organization that forced the British to relinquish control of what was then called Palestine, a name first given it by the Roman Emperor Hadrian who thought it would erase all memory of Israel.
It remained the given name of the area when, after World War I, the British and French drew lines on the map of the Middle East to create Lebanon as a French Protectorate and Palestine as Britain’s. Other nations created were Iraq and what was then called Trans-Jordan.
Following the day in 1948 when a provisional Hebrew government was announced, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt prepared to attack the re-born Israel. Menachem Begun went to a secret radio station in Tel Aviv. Virtually every home in the land was tuned to listen.
“One phase of the battle for freedom, for the return of the whole people of Israel to its homeland, for the restoration of the whole land of Israel to its God-covenanted owners, has ended,” he said. “The state of Israel has risen…through blood, through fire…it could not have been otherwise…and it is compelled to fight–or to continue to fight satanic enemies and blood-thirsty mercenaries, on land, in the air, and on the sea.”
“The first pillar of our state must therefore be victory, total victory, in the war which is raging all over the country, said Menachem Begin, eerily echoing the words of General MacArthur at West Point. “Whoever does not recognize our natural right to our entire homeland, does not recognize our right to any part of it.”
And he reminded the new citizens of Israel; “We cannot buy peace from our enemies with appeasement.” Facing the first war of national survival, he told them that, “in this battle we shall break the enemy and bring salvation to our people, tried in the furnace of persecution, thirsting only for freedom, for righteousness, and for justice.”
Nearly sixty years after Begin addressed his people, Israel is still the only truly free nation in the whole of the Middle East. It constitutes barely one percent of the total area occupied by its Muslim enemies. Israel’s population of 6.4 million people is equal to two percent of the combined 315 million Muslims of the nations surrounding and threatening them.
A friend of mine asked, “Why does 98% of the Middle East’s population with 99% of the land hate Israel so much? It is a mystery that defies explanation.” It is no mystery. The reason is Islam, a religion that holds all other religions in utter contempt, but especially the Jews whose ancestors had refused to recognize Mohammed as a prophet.
Finally, in this hour of blood and fire for both America and Israel, the words of another U.S. General, George S. Patton, Jr. are worth recalling when, on the eve of the invasion of Europe, he told his troops, “Americans love to fight, traditionally. Americans love the sting and clash of battle. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win.”
The wavering, the calls for cease-fire, the urgings for appeasement and withdrawal are not the foundation upon which great nations are born and based.
In Iraq, Americans must play to win and so must Israel in yet another hour of another war it must not lose. Our fates are intertwined; our destinies are the same. The issue is freedom and the battle must be joined. There is no substitute for victory.
“Warning Signs” is the Center’s way of helping Americans and others gain an insight to both national and international events, issues, and trends that will protect our interests and those of others striving toward freedom everywhere. The Center needs your donation to maintain this effort. If you prefer to send a check, please make it payable to The Caruba Organization, 28 West Third Street, Suite 1321, South Orange, NJ 07079.
Coming in September, Alan Caruba’s new collection of his commentaries written between 2003 and 2005. To learn more about “Right Answers: Short Takes on Big Issues”, click here.
© 2006 Alan Caruba.
All Rights Reserved
Site design and development by Mangobone
Rate This:
0 
0
Uh, I love how you included the copyright notice.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘Iran is somewhat more conservative on this issue but not much more than, say, Victorian England’ (Toxic Squirrel)
And can you imagine if we had nukes in the days of the Empire? The Napoleonic Wars would have been a bit different that’s for sure. Anyway hanging 16 year old girls ain’t ‘conservative’ it’s medieval and barbaric.
Jeremycj,
Nice article. The problem with ‘do it now’ is that Hezbollah are still possibly in position to attack Israeli civilians. Also Iran have an air force (however outdated) and it could be used to attack our guys on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’d say ‘do it if they haven’t ditched their nuclear project by the time there are enough F-22 Raptors and Eurofighter Typhoons surrounding them’ is more to the point. Israel and the UK as the USA’s main allies in the War on Terror should also be allowed to purchase the F-22 to best protect their own interests from the Iranian air force.
Rate This:
0 
0
Probably one of the most ignorant and stupid comments I’ve ever heard about the Middle East. (Jeremycj)
Thank you.
And, after reading the utter tripe that you copied from some American moron, thank you again.
Rate This:
0 
0
Idlex,
Are you with us, or are you with the terrorists?
Rate This:
0 
0
You mean like that sneaky bugger who tried to transfer planes in Texas while flying on a British passport, even though he was born in the States?
Rate This:
0 
0
Are you with us, or are you with the terrorists?
Neither. I don’t think in simplistic, black-and-white, good-and-evil terms.
I don’t think we’re fighting any “war on terror” anyway, because if we were we would have captured or killed Osama bin Laden years ago. And I think it is simply a distortion of language to describe Iran as a terrorist state, and part of an ‘axis of evil’. And to the best of my knowledge, even Hezbollah isn’t classified by the UN as a terrorist organisation (although the US classified them as such earlier this year). Anyway, I increasingly read the much-overworked word ‘terrorist’ as meaning ‘newly-invented enemy’. And we have newly-invented enemies everywhere these days, including, apparently, the entire religion of Islam.
This bundling of all our newly-invented enemies into one single ‘terrorist’ entity is simply nonsensical, destructive of coherent thought, and indeed is the product of incoherent thought.
Oh, and I don’t think that ‘we’ are particularly ‘good’, nor ‘they’ are particularly ‘evil’ either.
Rate This:
0 
0
Oh Idlex, you really got to learn to relax more and stop rising to the bait mate!
Rate This:
0 
0
Idlex does have a point and the fact still remains that there exists many in the Arab and wider Islamic world who just wish to destroy Israel. Their agenda is fuelled by anti-semitism, pan-Arabism, and general hatred towards the West and the values we cherish.
Rate This:
0 
0
Steven_L’s nickname henceforth is ‘Thrush’ because he’s an irritating c…
Rate This:
0 
0