National Review interview: Shackled Warrior, Israel in bondage,

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+

Caroline B. Glick is the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post and the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. Author of the recently released book Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad, Glick recently spoke to National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez about the region, the book, and the American presidency.

 

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Who is the shackled warrior?

 

 

Caroline Glick: The shackled warrior is Israel. Between the Israeli peace movement, the local and international media, the U.N., Europe and the U.S., Israel is both forced to fight the war being waged against it with both hands tied behind its back and to believe that it bears responsibility for the genocidal anti-Semitism that has taken over the Islamic world.

 

 

Lopez: You recently wrote, “Today the Gaza strip is a terror state run by an Iranian proxy.” What can be done?

 

 

Glick: Iran’s proxy — Hamas — must be defeated militarily. Israel must overthrow its regime in Gaza by force of arms. And Israel mustn’t agree to simply replace Hamas with Fatah.

 

 

Fatah is an unacceptable alternative to Hamas for two main reasons. First of all, Fatah refuses to fight Hamas and is far less popular than Hamas among Gazans, so transferring control over Gaza to Fatah would simply permit Hamas to regenerate and reassert control. Second, Fatah itself is a terrorist organization. Even today with Hamas in power in Gaza, Fatah terrorists continue to attack Israel with missiles from Gaza. Indeed, it bears recalling that until its government was overthrown by Hamas in June 2007, Fatah smuggled more Iranian weapons into Gaza from Egypt than Hamas did.

 

 

 

Lopez: How did Washington resistance to an Israeli victory come to be?

 

 

Glick: Since 1956, the U.S. has prevented Israel from achieving political victory over its enemies, even as Israel has repeatedly defeated its enemies militarily. This happened most recently in 2003. After Israel defeated the Palestinian terror networks in the West Bank in 2002 and 2003, and despite the fact that in the course of its operations Israel proved conclusively that the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority was commanding and coordinating the Palestinian jihad against Israel, the U.S. forced Israel to accept the Road Map peace plan in 2003, and so forced it to continue to accept Fatah and the Palestinian Authority as legitimate interlocutors that should be given statehood, land, arms, money, and international legitimacy.

 

 

 

Lopez: But why won’t Washington let Israel win?

 

 

Glick: For the U.S. to support an Israeli victory over its foes, Washington would have to acknowledge that the war against Israel and the war against the U.S. are one and the same. Such a U.S. move would also necessitate an acknowledgement of the nature of the war that is being waged against the U.S. Yet as the experience of the past seven years has made clear, the U.S. prefers to ignore the identity of its enemy.

 

 

It is due to this stubborn denial of the nature of the war that the U.S. has preferred to refer to the war as a “war on terror” instead of a war on jihad. And it is due to this refusal to accept the nature of the enemy that jihadist leaders and jihadist states are referred to as “extremists” or “thugs.”

 

 

Since embracing Israel as a crucial ally and not only letting Israel win but encouraging it to do so would prevent the U.S. from continuing its policy of denying the nature of the war, the U.S. has insisted on pretending that the war against Israel is completely unrelated to the war being waged against it. In short, ignoring the nature of the war against Israel is a central component of the strategy of denying the nature of the war and so avoiding the need to fight it in a coherent fashion.

 

 

 

 

Lopez: Is it counterproductive to criticize Washington? Isn’t the White House right now about the best friend Israel has?

 

 

Glick: The U.S. is certainly the best friend that Israel has, but that doesn’t mean that Israel should place the interests of the U.S. State Department — which has been hostile to Israel since 1948 — above its own interests. Neither Israel nor the U.S. benefits from such a policy.

 

 

I think that what is most counterproductive is embracing delusion. If the U.S. got angry at Israel for pointing out a reality, would that make Israel worse or better off than it is when it collaborates with the U.S. by basing its policies on fantasy? I think that everyone is better off when we base our strategic decisions on reality.

 

 

Lopez: Is there any hope for Israel in any of the presidential candidates?

 

 

Glick: Israel is at war. Its enemies seek to destroy it. The U.S. is at war; its enemies — which are also Israel’s enemies — seek to bring America to its knees with the intention of eventually destroying it also. If an antiwar candidate wins the presidential elections, and if anti-war politicians are able to win filibuster-proof control over one or both houses of Congress, it will be bad for Israel. Israel is the frontline state in the global jihad and so it will be the first to pay a price for a U.S. capitulation. If the counterjihad that Israel and the U.S. are fighting is the contemporary equivalent of Vietnam for instance, then Israel is Cambodia.

 

 

But then, unlike the North Vietnamese, our common enemies have already attacked on U.S. soil. And so in the event that the U.S. simply stopped fighting, while Israel would be the first to suffer, the U.S. would also suffer.

 

 

Moreover, unlike the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians, Israel is not dependent on direct U.S. military assistance to defend itself. It only needs spare parts. So if the U.S. cut and ran under an anti-war administration, if Israel had good leaders, it would probably do just fine.

 

 

 

Lopez: Having been to Iraq and knowing jihad all too well, what’s the message you’d like to see U.S. politicians get?

 

 

Glick: I think that the work that U.S. forces are doing in Iraq is a stunning achievement. The U.S. is beating back jihad in Iraq in a thousand different ways every day. But U.S. success in Iraq is contingent upon the Iraqis trusting America to stay the course. Everywhere U.S. forces are approached by Iraqis who beg them not to leave. The message to U.S. politicians is loud and clear — the U.S. has to stay engaged in Iraq and throughout the region if freedom has any chance of taking root and beating back the forces of slavery and jihad. The war is not about the suicide bomber. It is about the mentality that produces suicide bombers and replacing that mentality with the habits of liberty. And that takes time.

 

 

 

Lopez: Are you surprised we’re not seeing the kind of suicide-bombing violence in the U.S. that Israelis are used to? (I think about this question every time I’m at Grand Central, Union Station, or Macy’s …. or a Sbarro’s.)

 

 

Glick: In Israel we have managed to curb suicide bombers by, among other things, placing armed guards at the entrances to our shopping malls and cafes and parking garages. Actually it is worth noting that Palestinians aren’t the only ones who have to wait at roadblocks. Israelis have to be inspected every single time we want to get on a bus or go into a mall or grocery store.

 

 

 

 

What Israeli generals like former IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon always say is that the drop in bombings in Israel is 100 percent attributable to Israel’s military success in fighting and penetrating terror cells and preventing them from infiltrating into our cities and towns and highways. It has nothing to do with the Palestinians’ desire to attack us, which ha
s only increased over time. I think the same can be said of the U.S. The U.S. has succeeded in foiling terror plots against it since 9/11. And it is essential that those counterterror efforts continue because just assessing the statements made and the actions taken by the likes of al-Qaeda and Iran, it is clear that there has been no decrease in the enemy’s motivation to attack America.

 

 

 

Lopez: Has Europe betrayed Israel?

 

 

Glick: I think that the root of Europe’s refusal to support Israel is Europe’s refusal to accept the true lessons of the Holocaust. The lesson that Europe took from the Holocaust is that nationalism is bad. This of course, is absurd. Nationalism is neutral. Its relative badness or goodness is a direct function of how any specific nation behaves. The true lesson of the Holocaust is that nations and individuals have a responsibility to distinguish between good and evil and to support good and fight evil. Israel’s struggle against its neighbors, who refuse to accept it as a sovereign state just as Europeans refused to accept Jews as individuals in the 20th century, constitutes a moral challenge to Europe. And since Europe has refused to discard its moral relativism for moral choice, Europeans project their own moral blindness and weakness on Israel.

 

 

Lopez: Has it betrayed itself even more?

 

 

Glick: Pope Benedict XVI seems to think that Europe is betraying itself. And I daresay that he is correct. When Europe attacks Israel in diplomatic forums and in its media for defending itself against jihadist aggression, Europe is really saying that it is capitulating to Islamic pressure. In other words, the upshot of European attacks on Israel for targeting would-be murderers of innocents is an acceptance of the justness of aggression in the name of jihad. When Europe attacks Israel, it is saying that it prefers the same aggressors who are burning cars every night in Paris suburbs to their victims – whether they are Israeli or French.

 

 

It is notable that what we are seeing in European countries like Italy and France is that there is a direct correlation between a state’s willingness to defend itself against jihadists and its willingness to support Israel, (and the U.S.). In Italy for instance Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced that his first trip abroad will be to Israel. At the same time, he is changing the rules of engagement for Italian forces in Afghanistan to allow them to actually fight.

 

 

 

Lopez: How did a gal from the Midwest wind up in Jerusalem fighting jihad with her laptop?

 

 

Glick: I was inspired by Zionism when I was a young girl and decided to make aliyah – or move to Israel – when I was 12 and never changed my mind or regretted my decision.

 

 

As to fighting jihad, well, this is a war about defending everything that I believe in and care about. It seems to me that everyone who values freedom has a duty to fight it in any way he or she can.

 

 

 

Lopez: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hit Israel hard this weekend. Was it fair? What would you have preferred to hear?

 

 

Glick: I have been so discouraged by Secretary Rice’s policies that I cannot say I am the least bit surprised by her obnoxious statements ordering the Israeli government not to build homes for Jews in Jerusalem, our capital city. I am similarly not surprised by her insistence that Israel give the Fatah terror organization control over the West Bank. It has long been clear that Rice thinks that making things “convenient” for Palestinians by curtailing IDF counter-terror operations in the West Bank is more important than safeguarding the lives of Israel’s citizenry. It is also clear that Rice finds it perfectly acceptable for the Palestinians — who she wants to give a state — to base their nationalism on the negation of Israel’s right to exist. Hence she accepts their racist lies about Jerusalem not belonging to the Jews and embraces the notion that a Palestinian state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jews before it will be acceptable to the Palestinians.

 

 

It doesn’t matter to Rice that IDF military commanders are warning that taking down roadblocks in the West Bank will just enable the Palestinians to begin attacking Jerusalem and Israel’s coastal plane with mortars and rockets. It doesn’t matter to Rice that Fatah — which through her good offices the U.S. is training, arming and funding — has taken no action against Hamas since she forced Israel to transfer security control over the towns of Jenin and Nablus to Fatah control last month. Indeed, since she last pressed Israel for dangerous and unreciprocated “confidence building measures” towards the Palestinians, Fatah has begun to negotiate uniting its terror forces with Hamas. And she has nothing to say about this

 

 

I would have preferred that Rice stop advancing the establishment of a jihadist state in the West Bank to add to the jihadist state in Gaza which was established under her good offices in 2006. I would have preferred that Rice — and President Bush — stop placing the establishment of yet another Palestinian jihadist state at the top of their “To do before leaving office” list. But then, given her policies toward North Korea and Iran, I am not the least surprised that she is acting as obnoxiously as she is.

 

 

 

Lopez: How bad would a President Obama be for Israel? Why should that question matter to Americans?

 

 

Glick: Senator Barack Obama would be bad for Israel most of all because he refuses to acknowledge that there is a jihad being waged against the free world. Indeed, he refuses to acknowledge that there is such a thing as an “enemy” in international affairs. And as a consequence, he is unable to understand what an ally is. As the U.S.’s most stalwart ally in the Middle East, and as the frontline state in the global jihad, Israel will likely suffer greatly if Senator Obama is elected to the White House.

 

 

There are several reasons that Americans should care about the fact that an Obama White House will be hostile towards Israel. First, when Islamists perceive Israel as weak they become emboldened. And when they become emboldened, they tend to attack not only Israel but the U.S. as well. Indeed, some of the largest attacks against the U.S. — like the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 — came when the U.S. was most hostile towards Israel.

 

 

Second, when the U.S. places pressure on Israel, Israel is perceived as weak by the Muslim world. And when this happens, the tendency for wars to break out is increased. So when the U.S. has in the past blamed Israel for regional instability — the Arabs and Iran — which are the actual sources of that instability — exploit the situation by attacking Israel and sending the region into a tailspin. One can for instance attribute Yassir Arafat’s decision to attack Israel in 1996 — an attack which left 15 Israelis dead — to the Clinton administration’s massive pressure on the new Netanyahu government to accept the PLO as its “peace partner.”

 

 

Finally, U.S. pressure on Israel tends to weaken Israel and as I have argued, Israel is perceived by the jihadists as the frontline state in their war, the ultimate aim of which is global domination and the destruction of the U.S. So when the U.S. weakens Israel, the U.S. appears weak. Jihadists are then emboldened to attack not only Israel, but also the U.S. This is why, for instance, Shiite violence in Iraq rose steeply after Israel was perceived as having lost the war in Lebanon with Hezbollah in 2006. And Israel ended the war when it was under tremendous pressure from Secretary Rice to accept a ceasefire that left Hezbollah fully intact and free to rebuild its forces with Iranian and Syrian assistance.

 

 

All of this happened under U.S. administrations which in their day
were considered friendly towards Israel. If Sen. Obama, who is perceived as sympathetic to the jihadists, is elected, the consequences of U.S. appeasement of Iran and others at Israel’s expense will likely be more profound — both for Israel and for the U.S.

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+

11 Comments

  • Marc Handelsman, USA 06/17/2008 at 18:52

    We should pray that Senator McCain becomes the next U.S. President. A McCain Presidency would have an effective foreign policy, which would benefit both U.S. and Israeli interests. It’s better for the United States to have a leader that has sound judgment like Senator McCain. However, if Senator Obama wins the White House, it would be similar to Jimmy Carter’s administration. Former President Jimmy Carter lacked the judgment needed to be an effective leader, and Senator Obama would be no different. And his intention of negotiating with Iran is proof.

    Reply
  • Marcel Cousineau 06/17/2008 at 19:54

    Glick: “Israel is at war. Its enemies seek to destroy it. The U.S. is at war”
    Almost seven years after 9/11 the call from this war President it to find Osama Bin Laden.
    Did he just wake up or is this just more empty words ?
    You say Iraq goes well .
    Well it better be going well after the close to trillin dollars and lives wasted on this democracy debacle as we saw with his second democracy debacle with Hamas in Gaza.
    At least number 2 didn’t cost so much ,just stolen U.S. weapons and money supplied to the Fatah terrorist now in Hamas hands.
    The farce war America is fighting can be proven without any doubt by how the U.S. acted when the IDF was gaining the upperhand against Hizbollain in the summer of 2006.
    Do I need to remind you who has been restraining Israel at the behest of her Saudi/Arab owners and business interests ?
    And by the way ,Condi is not the President of the U.S. and does as she is told by her boss who has called her a very good Secretary.
    It’s easy to see why Boss Bush is pushing so hard for his vision,dream Palestinian state no matter what the Palestinian terrorists do against Israel.
    The empire is in terminal rot and we are beholden to those nations which keep our Titanic economy afloat with investments.
    To put it short and simple ,America has been selling out Israel for many years now just as the Europeans have been doing.
    It’s called ‘good business and survival to throw Israel under the train.
    Bush just does it with more finess that the British.
    When the Saudi’s tell Bush to produce for their fellow Moslem Palestinian’s Condi shows up with her broom and makes demands.
    What is astounding is how Israel is so incapable of saying no to Rice.
    It seems that impotent Israel follows the U.S. to certain disaster and it is equally astounding the level of faith which Israel places in such idiots fighting a war on undefined ‘terror’ who can’t even get Bin Laden hiding in the back room of their coalition partner’s in Pakistan.
    Israel can you see how the toxic Washington fumes have clouded your sight ?
    Manny#13 wrote :
    ‘Bush has his heart in the right place’
    I agree,I saw pictures of him while he was in Saudi Arabia smiling with sword and he looked happier than ever.
    I also remember how quickly he came to the rescue of Bin Ladens family in America and how he has allowed the building of hundreds of Wahabbi Moslques in America since taking power.I also see his heart is joyful to cleebrate Ramadan in the White House like no other president before him Also being the first president to call for a Palestinian state on Jewish land.
    Yes of course his heart is in the right place.

    Reply
  • Paul Johnson 06/17/2008 at 20:06

    Wow, not a single mention of settlements in the West Bank; not a mention of the number of non-militant casualties by the IDF. And then on top of that, the temerity to really slag off the ONLY friend in the world Israel has – the USA. This from a “midwest gal” who used her dubious “right of return” to return when she was 12 (I’m thinking not by herself, but heavily Zionist parents from whom she draws her politics).
    Israel is right to punish Hamas in Gaza for the onslaught of missiles. But the building of more homes in East Jerusalem contravenes every international known law. Ms Glick obviously doesn’t want peace in her lifetime. And badmouthing the United States will only increase Israel’s political isolation.

    Reply
  • Steve Klein 06/17/2008 at 21:06

    I’ve got a few unconsidered comments to make regarding this interview:
    Lopez: But why won’t Washington let Israel win?
    Glick: For the U.S. to support an Israeli victory over its foes, Washington would have to acknowledge that the war against Israel and the war against the U.S. are one and the same. Such a U.S. move would also necessitate an acknowledgement of the nature of the war that is being waged against the U.S. Yet as the experience of the past seven years has made clear, the U.S. prefers to ignore the identity of its enemy.
    It is due to this stubborn denial of the nature of the war that the U.S. has preferred to refer to the war as a “war on terror” instead of a war on jihad. And it is due to this refusal to accept the nature of the enemy that jihadist leaders and jihadist states are referred to as “extremists” or “thugs.”
    Since embracing Israel as a crucial ally and not only letting Israel win but encouraging it to do so would prevent the U.S. from continuing its policy of denying the nature of the war, the U.S. has insisted on pretending that the war against Israel is completely unrelated to the war being waged against it. In short, ignoring the nature of the war against Israel is a central component of the strategy of denying the nature of the war and so avoiding the need to fight it in a coherent fashion.”>>>
    I think this is a good answer but not the following:
    Lopez: Is it counterproductive to criticize Washington? Isn’t the White House right now about the best friend Israel has?
    Glick: The U.S. is certainly the best friend that Israel has, but that doesn’t mean that Israel should place the interests of the U.S. State Department — which has been hostile to Israel since 1948 — above its own interests. Neither Israel nor the U.S. benefits from such a policy.
    I think that what is most counterproductive is embracing delusion. If the U.S. got angry at Israel for pointing out a reality, would that make Israel worse or better off than it is when it collaborates with the U.S. by basing its policies on fantasy? I think that everyone is better off when we base our strategic decisions on reality.”>>>
    This administration is in no way a friend, a good friend or a best friend in my view. Israel may have a few friends in Washington; a few friends amongst the American people. Bush and Rice are not amongst any of these. To the extent Mr. Bush extends any kindly or generous words toward the Jews, it is due in large part to his pro-Israel Christian base and / or some domestic political considerations; Congressional considerations, etc. Bush’s heart is not with Israel in my opinion. If Caroline wishes to speak of a “friend” in relative terms, this White House is ‘more’ a “friend” than say France or Great Britain or Iran. That does not mean the White House is a friend in the true sense of the term. I cannot accept this notion common-place amongst American conservatives. Genuine friends do not do to friends what the Bush administration has done to Israel.
    Lopez: Is there any hope for Israel in any of the presidential candidates?
    Glick: Israel is at war. Its enemies seek to destroy it. The U.S. is at war; its enemies — which are also Israel’s enemies — seek to bring America to its knees with the intention of eventually destroying it also. If an antiwar candidate wins the presidential elections, and if anti-war politicians are able to win filibuster-proof control over one or both houses of Congress, it will be bad for Israel. Israel is the frontline state in the global jihad and so it will be the first to pay a price for a U.S. capitulation. If the counterjihad that Israel and the U.S. are fighting is the contemporary equivalent of Vietnam for instance, then Israel is Cambodia.
    But then, unlike the North Vietnamese, our common enemies have already attacked on U.S. soil. And so in the event that the U.S. simply stopped fighting, while Israel would be the first to suffer, the U.S. would also suffer.
    Moreover, unlike the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians, Israel is not dependent on direct U.S. military assistance to defend itself. It only needs spare parts. So if the U.S. cut and ran under an anti-war administration, if Israel had good leaders, it would probably do just fine.”>>>
    This seems to be an indirect endorsement of John McCain because Barack Obama and the Democrats are generally anti-war. I’m not sure I agree with this rationale. Caroline wrote: “If anti-war politicians are able to win filibuster-proof control over one or both houses of Congress, it will be bad for Israel. Israel is the frontline state in the global jihad and so it will be the first to pay a price for a U.S. capitulation.” The Democrats will little doubt withdraw fighting the jihadists. This might endanger U.S. security –it no doubt will and Mr. Obama might be in for a rude awakening — yet why will it “necessarily” be bad for Israel? It might make Israel and her leaders wake up to the reality that she cannot depend on America. It might force Israel’s leaders to take matters of national security into their own hands rather than looking to America to save her from Iran and other threats in the region.
    When asked about an Obama presidency, Caroline wrote:
    “There are several reasons that Americans should care about the fact that an Obama White House will be hostile towards Israel. First, when Islamists perceive Israel as weak they become emboldened. And when they become emboldened, they tend to attack not only Israel but the U.S. as well. Indeed, some of the largest attacks against the U.S. — like the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 — came when the U.S. was most hostile towards Israel.”>>>
    Israel is only seen as weak when her leaders capitulate to immoral White House pressure as Prime Minister Begin did to immoral Reagan administration pressure. The point is, Israel’s leaders need to learn to stand their just and moral ground in spite of the immoral pressure and let the immoral administration pressure be seen for the immoral pressure that it is.
    Caroline: “Second, when the U.S. places pressure on Israel, Israel is perceived as weak by the Muslim world. And when this happens, the tendency for wars to break out is increased. So when the U.S. has in the past blamed Israel for regional instability — the Arabs and Iran — which are the actual sources of that instability — exploit the situation by attacking Israel and sending the region into a tailspin. One can for instance attribute Yassir Arafat’s decision to attack Israel in 1996 — an attack which left 15 Israelis dead — to the Clinton administration’s massive pressure on the new Netanyahu government to accept the PLO as its “peace partner.”>>>
    Israel is only seen as weak when her leaders capitulate to immoral White House pressure as Mr. Begin did to immoral Reagan administration pressure during Operation Peace for the Galilee. The point is, Israel’s leaders need to learn to stand their just and moral ground in spite of the immoral pressure from Reagan or Clinton or Bush and let the immoral administration pressure be seen for the immoral administration pressure that it is. In other words, Israel’s leaders need to behave like men.
    I am not a huge fan of David bin Gurion. President Truman warned Israel that unless “tangible refugee concessions” were forthcoming, “the United States would reconsider its attitude towards Israel” — sounds like a threat to me — Ben Gurion did not flinch (according to historian Howard Sachar). “The United States is a powerful contry,” he declared in the Knesset. “Israel is a small and a weak one. We can be crushed but we will not commit suicide.”
    This is not rocket science.
    Caroline: “Finally, U.S. pressure on Israel tends to weaken Israel and as I have argued, Israel is perceived by the jihadists as the frontline state in their war, the ultimate aim of which is global domination and the destruction of the U.S. So when the U.S. weakens Israel, the U.S. appears weak.”>>>
    Please read what I wrote above.
    Glick: “Jihadists are then emboldened to attack not only Israel, but also the U.S. This is why, for instance, Shiite violence in Iraq rose steeply after Israel was perceived as having lost the war in Lebanon with Hezbollah in 2006. And Israel ended the war when it was under tremendous pressure from Secretary Rice to accept a ceasefire that left Hezbollah fully intact and free to rebuild its forces with Iranian and Syrian assistance.”>>>
    See above.
    “All of this happened under U.S. administrations which in their day were considered friendly towards Israel. If Sen. Obama, who is perceived as sympathetic to the jihadists, is elected, the consequences of U.S. appeasement of Iran and others at Israel’s expense will likely be more profound — both for Israel and for the U.S.”

    Reply
  • Isaac MBazbaz 06/18/2008 at 0:48

    So true – Maybe you should enter politics – certainly u will do better than the present PM or FM

    Reply
  • Al 06/18/2008 at 3:42

    But why is the US refusing to identify the enemy?
    A while ago C. Rice instructed the State Department to stop using certain terms such as Jihad and Jihadist.
    And then there is the close friendship and financial association of Bush with the Saudis, and of Cheney with the Gulf states. Those are threads to follow… It’s the Big Elephant in the room and the American media has been too polite or intimidated to mention it.
    Some time ago you mentioned that a media report linked Olmert – albeit indirectly and through his pal Talansky – with Iran’s attempts to purchase vital Israeli intelligence technology. It’s alleged Olmert tried to facilitate its sale through Venezuela. This allegation was promptly denied by the PM. (See Padded Pockets Politicians column of May 30, 2008.) So, there you have another thread to follow, Caroline.
    Because this is a convoluted and incomprehensible situation where the governments of two strong countries, the US and Israel, seem to have become patsies in the hands of backward and aggressive Jihadist regimes. They Jihadists be militarily defeated, if only there was the will to do it. Instead, we appease them. We offer them Jewish land. We call their ideology “religion of peace”.
    Something is exercising undue influence on Bush and Olmert to make them behave like this… But, what is it?

    Reply
  • Al 06/18/2008 at 3:59

    Regarding the US commitment to fight the Jihadists, how sincere is it?
    There is an ongoing show at airports across the US in an attempt to fool us into thinking they are protecting us through meticulous searches.
    Not so. There are loopholes big enough for trucks to get through. For example, it has been reported that the companies that cater to the airlines have extremely loose security measures put in place. And there are many other flaws in airport security.
    The situation along the Mexican border is shocking. The government is just NOT doing its job of stopping infiltrators. Thousands get across, and they are not all Mexicans or Central Americans looking for jobs anymore. The Jihadists are already in Latin America, training, infiltrating into the US. The US government knows this but instead of granting more powers to the border patrols, it has curtailed their range of options to stop this flood of illegals into the US.
    So, how much longer until the American public wakes up to the fact that the US is being slowly but surely weakened and put at serious risk, thanks to policies by its very own government?
    So – does it surprise us that a country like the US that does not protect itself because it prefers to favor the Arabs, would have any qualms sacrificing Israel?

    Reply
  • Marcel Cousineau 06/18/2008 at 13:50

    “the building of more homes in East Jerusalem contravenes every international known law ”
    -Paul Johnson
    What other nation on the earth is told whare it can build or have it’s boundaries and Capitol ?
    Only the Jews ,and it is done at the behest of the non compliant with international law Moslems who continue with slavery,cutting off heads ,refusing religious freedom and a list of other crimes against humanity.
    But Paul and the world are silent,only brave eonugh to go after miniscule Israel.
    Huum ,I smell a rat and a snake.
    Interesting how this Paul fellow goes after Israel for the crime agaisnt humainity of building homes and ignores his bosom buddies.
    I don’t doubt that it easy to turn your eyes away from the sins of your masters and go after the little Jews.
    How brave of you my cowardly hypocrite.
    I run into these Haters of God often who use ‘international law only against Israel, never against Sudan with Darfur or with any Moslem nation which contraven Paul’s rancid pickle ever day.
    Notice how he did not use his ‘international law ‘ against those fireing missiles on Israeli cities but Jews building homes on their land. Folks like Paul ignore the higher Law of God and use their twised ,hypocrital biased ‘law agaisnt Israel alone because Israel is easy to kick around.
    I long for the day when the Lion,Ariel grows his teeth back and start’s to tell the phony hypocrites like Paul Johnson’s where to put their ‘international law’

    Reply
  • Moshe 06/24/2008 at 14:38

    Caroline,
    There is a crucially important public slot that you are neglecting: Hebrew-speakers in Israel are eager to read your analyses, and ideas.
    You were publishing until recently in Makor Rishon, but even there, no more!
    There is simply no cool-headed, realistic and Jewish thinking being heard by ISRAELIS on the fanatical post-Zionistic stage that is Israel in 2008.
    Why?

    Reply
  • jh 06/24/2008 at 22:23

    Tactical Assessment; Middle Eastern Peace Process.
    IN assessing the current status of the Peace Process and its goal of Peace by the end of this year, we must first assess the status of the goals of those who oppose it. And it is wise to take the immediate medium view to that end. In 2000 Israel in an effort to broker land for Peace withdrew from Southern Lebanon.
    Now, Lebanon is being governed and is under the complete control, virtually of Hezbollah. One may observe that Syria pulled out. Well of course they did, their work is done. When one takes the even longer view that one could argue that Lebanon was once the only CHRISTIAN and only other FREE nation in the middle east, and that through massive, WESTERN STYE OPEN IMMIGRATION, of groups committed to destroying that same openness, and INDECISIVENESS on the part of the political and military that this was allowed to happen, there are many more lessons to learn. But that is a different subject for another day.
    The Tactical assessment is pure and simple, the radical forces dedicated to the destruction of Peace, Democracy, Freedom, Israel, the United States, and the West as a whole are maneuvering themselves in a position to achieve their Phase One of that goal, the destruction of Israel.
    See attached Diagram.
    They are positioning themselves.
    They are arming themselves
    They are hardening themselves.
    And though Fattah has participated in Peace talks, has made firm commitments to coexistence and Peace, etc, how reliable is that commitment if THEY are pressured to change that commitment with the promise of a trusting and unsuspecting Israel that can be taken if they act in concert. OR CAN be taken while Israel is forced to deal with a nuclear strike from Iran. OR following that scenario, give a promise to do nothing in that even while Israel is overrun from the North and the East. Look at Lebanon. Remember when THEY were assured of Peaceful coexistence back in the day? When Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East?
    The current Peace talks could actually be a way to give Iran time to create a nuclear weapon and either has it on the ready, or actually uses it against Israel and has all of their ducks in a row when they do.
    With their constant and very assured talk of Israel’s destruction, in the midst of Peace talk’s agreements and time tables, it really is the only logical conclusion to come to.
    Hezbollah, Hamass, even *Fattah will agree to and sign ANYTHING if it will give them what they want most, the annihilation of Israel.
    So, what does one do when one is surrounded on three sides and a sea on the fourth? One eliminates enemy assets in the area.
    ANY OPERATIONS into Gaza should and must be to completely destroy any and all forces supplies, munitions and assets of any kind.
    Southern Lebanon should be re-occupied. Damn the international ramifications, the government of Lebanon is now a Military asset of Iran with a force even more heavily armed than it has ever been before. A DMZ and early warning and response zone between Israel and those forces needs to be created and maintained. This also and of course pre-supposes that the Golan Heights will be reinforced against Syria.
    (Remember Kosovo? Chechnya? Others? )
    The West Bank Government of Fattah is working with Israel and the United States towards Peace, on the one hand, but on the other it is spewing the same rhetoric as Hamass. They should be treated as an unreliable partner which is neutral at best, and active participant in a more covert and secretive op to undermine the existence of Israel at best.
    Israel is, at a crossroads. On one hand, because of these initiatives toward Peace it is now better recognized and better accepted than it has been during it’s entire existence, one the other hand, these very initiatives are serving to threaten that very existence.
    There is a verse in the Bible that says, in the last days they will say, PEACE, PEACE, and there IS NO PEACE! Sometimes being a peace maker means, BEING A PEACE MAKER.
    Bottom line, the tactical analysis indicates that the current negotiations could be an attempt to position enemy forces for an endgame strike.
    IMMEDIATE ACTION MUST BE TAKEN TO ELMINATE THAT POSSIBLE EVENTUALITY!
    Presidents Trip to Europe:
    According to some European publications, European leaders and the populace in general are happy to know that this is the last time they will see George Bush in his official capacity as leader of the Free World. Why is that? Though we could name some flash points topics that the press and media have had a heyday with over the past decade, I
    Believe that the real reason is that this President has addressed, and stood against, in a proactive manner, the Islamic extremist threat that has threatened both the West and the Middle East. It is a complicated issue with a simple plan to save the day.
    Go after them and destroy them.
    Before they do the same to us. Europe is in the middle of, what I call a Cool War. Not a hot one with Tanks rolling through the streets, though things do blow up from time to time. Not a Cold War, in that the enemy, though not invading is openly hostile with a flag and a homeland. But a Cool War. One in which on one side of the spectrum, they are calling for war, destruction and death, but without a specific recognized country, and on the other side of the spectrum, working with and living beside individuals families and organizations that agree with those same people on the far side of the spectrum and do, what they can, to ‘support the cause.’
    Whether that is going away to a terrorist camp and returning to strap a bomb around ones waist, or just having and raising kids who, will either grow up willing to do the same if called upon, or who will work within the system.
    The current extremist strategy towards Europe is very similar to that being utilized against Israel, it is just being done in an ideologically as opposed to militarily.
    With the current openness and secularism of the west, the extremist have come to the conclusion that they can overwhelm the West Sociologically, Politically, Philosophically, and biologically (i.e., having children, whereas they secular narcissistic westerners ‘believe in limiting their carbon footprint’ through abortion!)
    Europe has already passed the point of no return from a population stand point for the most part. And the ‘believe in nothing’ is doomed when faced with firm and unrelenting Faith (Christians in Europe have compromised the tenets of their faiths to oblivion! Faith is not science, it is FAITH! NO APPOLOGIES!)
    These strategies are linked specifically to the ‘HOT WAR’ that we have and are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fighting the war there had kept a ‘heating up’ of the Cool war from hitting Europe, keeping things down to riots in France and a few bombings in England, Spain, and elsewhere.
    Men and Materials have had to be poured into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan to keep their nightmare alive, and for that they should thank George W Bush, Tony Blair, and all of the other Coalition Partners who have the ability to look at and take action upon the long term strategic interests of our Planet!
    So yes, take a long look at this President. The last time you saw a man like this was when you were being liberated after World War II. Pray that the next President will raise to the new, deep, yet simple, dangerous and no room for compromise foes that we will have to face in the coming decades.
    Europe should remember this stark and glaring fact, Turkey, who is our ally and friend, was once known, for a thousand years and the CHRISTIAN BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
    Now, all that is left of that proud civilization are museums and a small struggling and persecuted community of Saints. ( And that Empire was not that much smaller than the EU is today. And, ironically enough, it was the avoidance of military confrontation that the Byzantines had, that paved their downfall as well. ) The Humanists and other civil libertarians should also take not of this as well.
    Remember, there are no Rock Stars Casino’s Hooters, *Christian Book stores, or Gays in Iran.
    But most of the same can be found in Christian England. ( The Anglican Church is the official church of the country, and Queen Elizabeth II is it’s defender!) Because Christianity believes in true, universal tolerance of and compassion for, those who are not like themselves!
    The last part was as much appeal as it was analysis but that does not make it less worthy of being heeded, nor the situation less dire, and the situation is now, less dire, because of the resolve, vision and heroism of this President of the United Stares visiting one last time.
    Best regards
    GC

    Reply
  • Dow Buzzell 07/14/2008 at 6:21

    What can we do to educate the American public here in the States?
    I have spent 5 years studying Islam from the inside. I now have emerged as a believer in Jihad against the West. There is no talking to these people, no reasoning, it is a Cult.
    As one that was a Anti-War mentality 5 years ago, now I am a Hawk that is ready to sign up in this war on Jihad.
    It took me 5 years of intense study, interaction, and constant prayer to change my mind.
    Now I my mission is to educate my fellow Americans about what I have learned.
    I just don’t know where to start, I know the first place I am starting and that is campaigning for McCain. But after that, I am lost.

    Reply

Leave a Comment