UC Santa Barbara Professor Compares Gaza to the Holocaust

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Reichskristalnacht- This is not Gaza




This is not Gaza




This is not Gaza




This is not Gaza



The on-going Israel-Palestinian conflict continues to rear its head on University of California campuses. This time the furor is at UC Santa Barbara, where sociology professor William I Robinson (who is Jewish) recently sent an email to his students containing images of Nazi atrocities against Jews compared with images of "Israeli crimes" against Palestinians.

At least two students were offended by the images, with which they did not agree. They have taken the step of formally complaining to the administration. As a result, an investigation by the university is on-going into whether Robinson violated his academic role or whether he was simply exercising his academic freedom. Predictably, his professorial colleagues are rallying behind Robinson, who states that his academic freedom is under attack.

How this plays out at UCSB is anybody's guess. To me, it is just another case of a liberal university professor trying to shove his personal views down the throats of his students. It is also another example of why so many Jewish students feel under siege on UC campuses as a result of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. (I myself teach at UC-Irvine, and as I write this, we are gearing up for another week of attacks against Israel-as well as America and "Zionist" Jews- being sponsored by the Muslim Student Union at UCI.)

Here is what I would say to Professor Robinson:

First of all, my students (English as a second language) have no idea what I think about the world and its issues. My job is to teach them English-not teach them what they should think. You can teach sociology without injecting your personal views. You could remain neutral and present both sides of an issue.

Be that as it may, you are entitled to your opinions. If you sympathize with the Palestinian cause, I can respect that, and certainly, there are valid points to be made on their behalf. Moreover, Israel is not immune from criticism. Where I take issue with you is comparing Israel's policies to those of Nazi Germany, a practice that is currently popular-but outrageously false. I respect the fact that you are Jewish, but I also have extensive knowledge of Nazi Germany. I have spent three years of my life in Germany and return regularly. I also have written a history of a small town in Germany, which includes an account of the Nazi era and the fate of its Jewish residents.

First of all, Nazi Germany was never under external threat of attack from its neighbors. Jews were not undermining the country's security, nor were they engaging in acts of terror against the German state or people. Nobody was launching rockets into Germany from neighboring countries. Jews were not blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces or on buses. In fact, with few exceptions (like the Warsaw ghetto) Jews went to their fate submissively. Israel is, indeed, under attack from the Palestinians and from its neighbors ever since its creation in 1948. They are entitled to defend themselves from their enemies who are determined to wipe them out.

Where can you point to an orchestrated government campaign against Palestinians as sub-humans? Where is the Reichskristalnacht against Palestinians? Where can you find a deliberate attempt by Israel to literally extinguish the Palestinian people?

Gaza is not, as you have claimed, comparable to the Warsaw ghetto. The Warsaw ghetto was only a step to the Final Solution, and the Nazi intent was to destroy the Jews. That is not the intent of Israel vis-vis the Gazans/Palestinians. Gazans today are living under Gazan rule. There are no Jews in Gaza. They left. Unless I am mistaken, there is a border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. Is it fair to condemn Israel for shutting off its border with Gaza when under rocket attack and not criticize Egypt when they shut down their border? Why is it that the Arab countries in the region want to keep the Palestinians confined to this small area living as refugees and in squalor rather than let them assimilate into their countries? I think you know the answer.

If Israelis are to be compared to Nazis, where are the gas chambers? How can you compare the sad fact that Gazan/Palestinian and Lebanese civilians are killed because they were caught in the cross-fire (Hamas and Hizbollah are notorious for setting up their combat operations in populated areas)or killed by air strikes when the targets were Hamas/Hizbollah fighters with the deliberate genocide that took place in World War II? Where are the cases of Israeli troops rounding up Palestinians, marching them to pits and shooting them(men, women and children) by the hundreds?

If this sounds like a history lesson directed toward Professor Robinson, it is not. I am sure Robinson knows his German/Jewish history quite well. Rather, it is directed toward those students who have to have his distorted version of history shoved down their throats.

University students are entitled to an education-not an indoctrination.

New From Lionheart: St. George's Day Parade

Morality in a Totalitarian State: A Personal Revisionist History

Opinions, in my opinion, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.-- Wrestling With Mohammed - 12/9/07

'-- or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.'

The Third Reich. Hitler's Germany. World War Two and the good German volk. Mein Kampf. How many books have I read on this immense subject? How many documentaries have I watched? Too many to remember but enough to form an opinion. In thinking back over all these books, over all these years, perhaps one of the most influential books I have read on this subject -- after Mein Kampf -- was Daniel Goldhagen's blockbuster bestseller "Hitler's Willing Executioners". His research was so thorough, his arguments so compelling, that they proved irresistible. He had statistically proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the 'good German people' were not only cognizant of the prosecution of the Holocaust, but had either directly or indirectly participated in its ghastly mission.

The Germans voted Hitler into power and sanctioned his every move enthusiastically. They continued in their loyal support for Der Fuhrer from the heady victories of 1940 to the horrid devastation of 1945. The idea that the German people had somehow been held hostage, that Germany had in effect been hijacked by some small fanatical gang of Nazis, was therefore ludicrous and self-serving. In short, the German people got what they had asked for in WWII. Despite our own post-war government wanting to quickly change the subject, more interested in building up a strong ally in Western Germany to offset the Communist takeover of the East than in pointing fingers -- despite all of their efforts, it was, in my opinion, the German people and not just the Nazis, who were deeply complicit in their own fate. This was perfectly obvious.

I have just come away from watching "Hitler's Germany: The People's Community 1933-1939", from the award-winning television classic "The World at War". I was riveted to the screen. I was especially moved by the personal interviews of Germans who lived under the Third Reich, people who had survived, who had made whatever accommodations were necessary. Their stories were compelling. They were straight-forward, apparently completely sincere. Could I have been wrong all these years? Was it possible that an entire nation could be held captive? Was it really possible that they just didn't know what Hitler had planned for them, and that by the time they did know, it was too late?

The German people were propagandized daily, in every conceivable form. But did the average German really live in fear? Could they really not protest? I had come to accept the theory that 'people get what they deserve' in a government. Especially if they voted that government into power, and continually ratified that power. It made sense. They loved Hitler and they loved his bloodless conquests of 1938-1940. They loved him until the bombs started falling on Berlin. Many love him still.

How easy it's been to sit here comfortably in my living room and pass judgement on a whole people, a whole generation. And how arrogant. Never having experienced all the small daily terrors of tyranny, I felt assured in the wisdom of my opinions. Assured of the veracity of the many articles I had written on this subject. The German people were guilty as hell.

But now?

Just a few days ago I wrote about longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip of the Left. Perhaps these thoughts recurred to me while watching that powerful documentary. Perhaps my previous strongly-held opinions were shaken. Perhaps all these years I had got it wrong. Not wrong about the horrors of Nazism or the inconceivable tragedy of the Holocaust. But wrong nonetheless. Wrong in that favorite maxim -- that people get the government they deserve.

What I learned.

I believe that I seriously underestimated the trauma of the post WWI chaos in Germany. The Great Depression. The roaming street gangs and the violent and deadly clashes between political rivals. Chaos and anarchy. Getting worse every day. Perhaps it's just that I'm getting older, but today I seem to have a deeper appreciation of how desperately people would want peace and order restored. It's understandable. It's human.

'...longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip the Left.' Isn't that what I/we are longing for? Someone to follow? Someone to finally confront and defeat these leftists who are bound and determined to ruin this great country of ours? Am I suggesting that America would welcome a Hitler, or a dictator of any stripe? No. We've already flirted with Fascism during our own Great Depression but the Union survived. Besides, we have guns and we're too damn independent.

What I am suggesting is this.

The Third Reich was a near-perfect example of a totalitarian state. Something which I think Americans have great difficulty imagining. Can we imagine a nation under the iron rule of one party? Every facet of the media tightly controlled by Goebbles' nearly impregnable propaganda juggernaut. No Internet. All newspapers tightly controlled, all radio -- to be caught listening to a foreign broadcast could mean a trip to the concentration camp -- all movies, all schools. (Aren't we dealing with some embryonic form of this oppressive propaganda right here in America today? Only this time the controllers are on the left). The infamous Gestapo, though proportionately small in number, enjoyed a vast network of spies and informers -- only to be matched by Stalin's murderous USSR.

This moving documentary told the story of a German woman who had a deep interest in spirituality, who felt that she could at times predict the future. On the day that an unsuccessful attempt was made on Hitler's life, in Munich, she commented to her ten year old daughter, 'I knew that was going to happen.' Proud of her mommy, the little girl couldn't wait to tell her friends at school. One her classmate's fathers was in the Nazi Party. That day the Gestapo came to the mother's house. Fortunately, this particular victim was spared. But what of those who were not? What kind of fear was this? How much more real could it get?

So how has my watching this classic documentary changed my opinion of WWII Germany and the Germans? I think it's humbled me a bit. I'm a little less sure of myself. How would I have managed my life under the iron grip of the Third Reich? Would I have been a brave member of some courageous but ultimately impotent Resistance? Or would I have played the game like everybody else? Would I find my right arm uncontrollably raised in that familiar 'Sieg Heil'!?

Still, the German people voted Hitler into power. And when Hitler finally pushed the allies into war it wasn't just the Nazis who had to be defeated: it was Germany. But considering the deadly milieu in which they lived during the Third Reich, is it fair that so many Germans had to die for the Cause?

No, of course it's not fair. It is what it is.

Finally, how is all of this history relevant to our current crises, our current threats from this ever-growing Islamic jihad?

We must, I believe, carry two thoughts in our hearts simultaneously. First and foremost the realization that Islam is indeed evil, as evil as Nazism, maybe more so, and it must be either conquered or destroyed. Not just 'radical Islam" or 'fanatical Islam', but the very core of this universal menace. Secondly, we must understand that 'All is fair in love and war'. Is it fair to destroy an enemy who is determined to destroy you? Absolutely. Is it fair that the soldiers or terrorists whom we destroy are often products of a system over which they have no control? If a child is propagandized from birth, whether it be in Germany's Hitler Youth or in a Pakistani madras, is it fair that he should pay the price for those deadly ideologies?

No, it isn't fair. It is what it is.

So how has this film changed me, changed my opinion? I think I'm a little broader now perhaps. A little more empathetic for the people of Germany, the volk who, fairly or not, ultimately paid the price for the system that they had became a part of. I hope I am a little less judgmental after today, a little more careful.

That skinny ten year old boy in the Pakistani madras, incessantly bowing up and down, like some sinister robotic toy, endlessly reciting the Arab Mein Kampf, learning all he needs to know, who his enemies are, enemies he will most likely never meet, except perhaps in violence and in blood. He is the enemy. He is the victim. Simultaneously. And he must be conquered or destroyed. There's no other way. It's either us or them. And the sooner we understand this the better.

But is it fair? Of course not. It is what it is. - rg

61 & 100

By Findalis

61!

Today is Yom Ha'atzmaut! The 61st Anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. 61 years ago David ben Gurion said in his address of independence:

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel.

PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE "ROCK OF ISRAEL", WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948).

David Ben-Gurion

11 minutes later, President Harry S. Truman sent the following telegram:

This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel.

Then 5 Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) attacked the fledgling nation. 5 nations whose combined military power had a 10 to 1 advantage over the new nation. 5 nations with the best equipped militaries in the region, compared to the new nation with a spattering of guns, no tanks, few planes, and no real artillery.

The new nation never stood a chance of survival fora more than a week, perhaps 10 days.

But the new nation had a weapon that the others didn't have. The Hand of G-d.

Today Israelis are celebrating the founding of their nation. Born in blood, yet with the promise and hope that peace will one day resound through out the land.

Israel then and now!



View at YouTube

100!

This month the city of Tel Aviv celebrates the 100th Anniversary of its founding.

Some interesting facts about Tel Aviv:

The city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa was established in 1909. Its birth coincided with the birth of modern Zionism. It is the first Hebrew-speaking city in modern times.

Tel Aviv and its outskirts consists of 2 1/2 million people, about one-third of Israel's population. Over one million people visit the city daily. Actual population within city limits is 350,000.

Incorporated into a single municipality with Tel Aviv in 1950, Jaffa is older than the city of Jerusalem, and is the oldest operating port in the world.

Tel Aviv contains the largest collection of Bauhaus Architecture in the world and was named a UNESCO world heritage site.

Tel Aviv-Jaffa is Israel's center of commerce and culture. Most major banks, insurance, and high tech companies, are headquartered in Tel Aviv. Fifty percent of all theater seats filled each day in Israel are in Tel Aviv. It is home to the only Opera House, the Israel Philharmonic, Habima, Cameri and Gesher Theatre companies. Israel's Diaspora Museum, the Museum of Art, Museum Ha'aretz, Nahum Gutman and Rubin Museums are all located in Tel Aviv. It is home to the Bat-Sheva Dance Troupe and the Cinematheque.

Tel Aviv in 1909

Tel Aviv today.

Quite a difference a century makes!

2 Anniversaries. One for the birth of a city, the other for the birth of a nation. 2 reasons to shout out in joy:

Am Yisrael Chai!

A few timely words from Honest Abe

A note from Radarsite: Our good friend and fellow patriot Lew Waters sent me this copy of a letter he emailed to Congress. What a great find. Bravo Lew Waters! - rg

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

To: Congress.org
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: For Your Consideration

Message sent to the following recipients:
Senator Cantwell
Senator Murray
Representative Baird
President



April 26, 2009

Since many compare President Obama to Abraham Lincoln, I direct your attention to his own words.

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume
VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association"
(March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

The continued nationalization of business must cease. The out of control entitlements should be curtailed to those that are absolutely necessary.

Sincerely,
Lewis Waters

Lew Waters
Vancouver, Wa.
http://www.blogger.com/lewwaters@msn.com

Visit Lew's fine website here:
http://rightinaleftworld.blogspot.com/

Shane Murphy, Pirate Hostage Accuses Rush Limbaugh

by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Captain Shane Murphy, the second in command on the Somali pirated Maersk Alabama, is accusing Rush Limbaugh of "evil hate speech."

Rush Limbaugh

Captain Murphy was second in command to Captain Richard Phillips until Phillips offered himself up for ransom. Phillips convinced the pirates to exit the Maersk Alabama to a lifeboat with him, in an attempt to save his crew. With Phillips gone, Captain Murphy was in charge. After the U.S.S. Bainbridge arrived on scene, Murphy piloted the Maersk Alabama to Kenya and waited-out the rescue of his superior, Captain Phillips.

Now that both Captains and crew are safely back in the U.S., the young Captain Murphy is accusing Rush Limbaugh of "trying to make this into a race issue." Rush called the pirates "black Muslim teenagers." Murphy is feeling a bit self-righteous. He said Limbaugh's words were "disgusting."

You gotta get with us or against us here, Rush,” Murphy said. “The president did the right thing…It’s a war…. It’s about good versus evil. And what you said is evil. It’s hate speech. I won’t tolerate it.

Now, I will give this young man the benefit of the doubt. I assume he lives on the East Coast and is Liberal - and then again, he is young. He doesn't know that the Obama administration certainly does not think Somali pirates are waging war against us. Obama doesn't even believe Iraq was a war.

Here's the thing Captain Murphy, the pirates were black, they were teenagers, and you must face the fact that they were probably Muslim. It's just the way things were out there when your ship was taken.

Now the Rev. Al Sharpton says the pirates "call themselves voluntary Coast Guard in Somalia, which may be more apt." Think about that Captain Murphy. Are you buying that? Sharpton is trying to sell it to the American people.

Rush Limbaugh was supportive of you, your Captain and the crew in every way. He made several points, not the least of which was that the three black Muslim pirates shot to death, supposedly on the orders of Barack Obama, was okay by the Left, but "let George Bush's Navy gun down three black teenagers out there in the open seas, and I guarantee there would be hell to pay and war crimes trials."

Here's the thing Captain Murphy - it's all true. The terrorists were teenagers, they were not voluntary coast guard, they were black and, again, it's a very good bet they are Muslim.

You need to grow up politically and see what's happening in the world of terrorism. This was a terrible event for you and your men, for your families, for your co-workers and friends - and it was a terrible event for Americans as we tuned in almost 24/7 hoping to learn that our country had rescued Captain Phillips.

You say you "won't tolerate" Rush Limbaugh's "hate speech." That's quite a statement. I doubt you listen to him with any regularity. That job you have - you know how dangerous it to tread those specific waters. You probably received extra pay for the high-risk-nature of the voyage. I don't like others putting themselves, knowingly in harm's way for the sake of a profit, especially when your country must come to your aid. I wish I didn't have to tolerate such recklessness...but guess what? I do not have a choice.

I suggest the Maersk line and all others who routinely sail this part of the world - stay out of there. Leave the emergency relief supplies in the U.S. or take them to a part of the world that does not support terrorism. Let the pirates sit on their shoreline wondering where the American riches have gone. Let the people receiving the supplies, now no longer available to them, get themselves down to the shore and beat the hell out of those who ruined the influx of American benevolence.

Cynthia McKinney and George Galloway Coming to UC-Irvine

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



George Galloway (L), Uday Hussein (R) during "happier times" in Baghdad


From May 5-21, the Muslim Student Union at UC-Irvine will be hosting more anti-Israel events with their usual collection of professional Israel-bashers, many of whom are making repeat performances at the Orange County campus (Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Anna Baltzer, etc.) This time the MSU has really reached into the dregs by bringing in America/Israel-hating radical British MP George Galloway (Saddam Hussein's old pal from the Oil for Food Program) and none other than Cynthia McKinney, former congresswoman from Georgia, whose loony theories and ideas are too numerous to list here. Of late, Ms McKinney was recently run ashore by the Israeli Navy while trying to smuggle God knows what to Gaza during the fighting there earlier this year. One wonders whether Ms McKinney will bring in a platoon of her New Black Panther Party thugs, like Hashim Nzinga to provide security and threaten any Jewish on-lookers (as they are wont to do). Chances are good since the UCI Campus Police chief has already conceded they don't have the resources to police these events.

McKinney will make her appearance May 13, while Galloway will crawl out from under his rock May 21. By the way, all you UCI students, the money to pay for these creeps to come to UCI and spout their hate comes out of your student tuition fees.

Galloway, of course, was a loud voice of opposition to sanctions against Saddam's Iraq as well as the invasion of that country. No wonder. According to numerous allegations, Galloway was on the dictator's payroll during the Oil for Food program receiving oil vouchers worth a small fortune. He was even seen in Iraq during the good old days whoopin' it up and smoking cigars with Saddam's son, Uday, the rapist and torturer. Not only does Galloway hate Israel, but America as well, leading one to wonder why he comes here so often-or why we let this scoundrel in.

McKinney, when she is not sailing the Mediterranean in the Leakin' Lena with supplies for the boys of Hamas, is hitting Capitol policemen or accusing Jews of orchestrating her election defeats-at least through her goons in the New Black Panther Party, like Hashim Nzinga, who she uses for security. Her father, former politician Billy McKinney has also made a few anti-Semitic remarks in his daughter's defense-blaming Jews for said election defeats. By the way, the elder McKinney does not use the phrase "Zionist Jews"-he spells the word out: ("Jews have bought everybody. J.E.W.S.".)

So the fact that the MSU is inviting these two odious characters as their speakers again says volumes about the nature of that organization. Their presence at UCI will be an embarrassment to the university.

Those Angry Young Men

The laws of primogeniture and the First Crusade

What in the world, you might well ask, could the First Crusade and some rather obscure Medieval "laws of primogeniture" have to do with our current civilizational crises? Perhaps quite a bit. First, what exactly is "primogeniture"?
Primogeniture is the common law right of the firstborn son to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings. It is the tradition brought by the Normans to England in 1066. According to the Norman tradition, the firstborn son inherited the entirety of a parent's wealth, estate, title or office. In the absence of children, inheritance passed to the collateral relatives, in order of seniority of the collateral line.

The effects of these laws on the noble warrior class -- and on the poor commoners as well -- were enormous. Those sons born second in line were often highly trained and well-equipped combatants instilled with a strong warrior ethos -- but with no appreciable income. A dangerous situation, highly trained warriors with nothing to do. All too often these disenfranchised, less-than-glorious knights resorted to internecine fighting or common brigandage. But what could be done about them?

In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins.

There has long been conjecture among medieval scholars that a major part of Pope Urban II's calling for the Crusades (just thirty years after the introduction of the primogeniture laws) was that it presented a perfect opportunity to gainfully employ these troublesome errant knights and give Europe a well-deserved respite from the wanton violence.

Perhaps it shouldn't come as too great a shock to realize that this poor old wounded world of ours has all too often been ruled by men just out of their adolescence. More than one teenager ascended to the Imperial Roman throne (among them the notorious Caligula). Here's some interesting statistics.

The world
Population: 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.)
Age structure: 0-14 years: 27.4% (male 931,551,498/female 875,646,416)
15-64 years: 65.1% (male 2,174,605,518/female 2,124,494,703)
65 years and over: 7.5% (male 217,451,123/female 278,474,917) (2007 est.)
Median age: total: 28 years
male: 27.4 years female: 28.7 years (2007 est.)

Life expectancy in Imperial Rome:
Tombstones show that the life expectancy of women was 34 years as contrasted with 46 years for men because women often died in childbirth.
Resource: Encarta
Or as low as this:
[Roman] life expectancy at birth [was]in the range of 20–25 or less (Macchiarelli et al., 1998)
CIA World Fact Book
So, somewhere between 20 and 46 years life expectancy.

Angry young men. To see them in action just watch a world cup soccer match in South America or Brussels. Or more to the point, take a closer look at those inflamed Arab streets. What do you see? Angry young men with nothing to do. Angry young men, overflowing with testosterone, just itching for a fight. And of course a notable absence of women. Here's some more interesting statistics.

Gaza Strip
Population:
1,551,859 (July 2009 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 44.4% (male 353,489/female 334,770)
15-64 years: 53% (male 420,618/female 402,297)
65 years and over: 2.6% (male 16,483/female 24,202) (2009 est.)
Median age:
total: 17.4 years
male: 17.2 yearsfemale: 17.5 years (2008 est.)
Resource: CIA World Fact Book

And this --

The median age of the Israeli Arab is 14 and just entering his reproductive years... anxious to make BOTH Love and War! Another way of looking at this is that half of all Israeli-Arabs are under the age of 14!
Resource: Masada 2000

So the angry young men are still with us, and they are still angry. Our world is replete with them. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Arab world. That volatile hyper-masculine, often adolescent, world of generational revenge, brutality and violence, that self-destructive warrior culture which the good pope tried, somewhat successfully, to ameliorate. But this time it's the angry young Muslim men who are on a Crusade, a worldwide jihad against the West. Perhaps we can learn from the lessons of history. Perhaps we can better recognize our foes, and realize that they are predominantly angry adolescents. Unfortunately, the cynical, hate-filled mullahs have, it appears, successfully harnessed all that testosterone. It is aflame on the Arab street. Can we somehow find a way to extinguish this terrible flame before it engulfs our world?

An important postscript: I have been faulted by email by a good friend and compatriot -- perhaps with some justification -- for focusing too much on these angry adolescents filled with testosterone, and not clearly enough identifying the main evil behind it all, which is of course Islam. I should perhaps have made the point that, from birth, these empty vessels have been indoctrinated into that hate-filled cult of violence and revenge, and we are living with the results. For most young men, since childhood, the only education they have received has been the relentless, all-consuming study and memorization of the Koran, augmented by virulent and unwavering anti-Israeli, anti-Western dogma. In this sense, they never had a chance. As I stated in the article, the cynical hate-filled mullahs have successfully harnessed all this rampant testosterone for their own ignoble imperialist ends. And this fact give the conflict much of its adolescent, anarchic, and ultimately self-destructive character. Nonetheless -- and here my friendly critic has a valid point -- We can never forget that the source of this evil force that we are fighting all over this world is Islam itself. And our enemies, whether they be adolescents or even children, regardless of the facts of their having little choice in their molding, are indeed the enemy, an enemy who must be conquered, converted, or destroyed. They are in many ways a modern day Islamic version of the Hitler Youth with whom they share many of the same ideologies, just as thoroughly indoctrinated and just as threatening.

Anyone who has read my writings on this subject knows my adamant position on the horrors of Islam. My somewhat qualified sympathy for these murderous young men, based upon the facts of their radical propagandised upbringing, is totally subsumed by my deep visceral hatred of their evil cause: Islam, bloody Islam. - rg

"Moral Muslims": A Continuation of the Discussion

Below are three comments from Findalis' recent thought-provoking Radarsite article.

Roger W. Gardner said...
Fine, thoughtful article. The subject of reforming Islam remains problematic for me. To abrogate the existential threat of Islam to the non-Islamic world, one would have to expunge so much material from the Koran that it would become utterly unrecognizable -- conquerable to taking Christ out of Christianity. Islam is aggressive political movement founded on religious doctrine. Islam was founded by a criminal and murderer, and this fact cannot be altered by changing or deleting a few violent phrases. I'm afraid I still find it difficult to recognize "moral Muslims" or "moderate Muslims". Unless they are prepared to completely renounce the teachings of their "prophet" and start afresh, they are, in my view, guilty of perpetuating this ghastly cult. Islam is the enemy. Not just the radicals, but the bloodthirsty cult itself. Islam -- regular, "non-radical" Islam is the sworn enemy of freedom and liberty, There can be no other interpretation of its message. It truly is "them or us".
April 23, 2009 4:14 AM
Findalis said...
Actually Roger there is a small minority of Muslims who do reject the violent passages of the Koran as false prophesies. They accept only the early non-violent ones. Nor do they consider Mo the most perfect man but place him as imperfect as many of the other prophets of the bible.It is too bad that the majority of Muslims don't follow this sect. For if they did, none of us would have a problem with Islam.Islam today is where Christianity was in the 15th Century. The violence over the Reformation lasted centuries. Unfortunately, the world cannot afford 200 years of war. Not in an age of WMDs. So either Islam must reform to a gentler form or it will be destroyed. The world cannot accept any other choice!
April 24, 2009 12:43 AM
Ben said...
I dissected the article here:http://snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/flight93-terrorist-memorial/I took issue with seven critical points, which I denoted with superscripts linked to an enumerated list following the article. Roger is right: Islam can not survive the excision of its evil core. Findalis is out of luck, because Islam is irreformable. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved; see 5:3. 6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower. 18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him. You can't change the Qur'an!!! Umdat as-Salik, Book O, Chapter 8, paragraph 7 lists 20 acts entailing apostasy, punishable by execution. This is one member of that list:-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;A Muslim who denies 2:216, 8:12, 8:39, 8:60,8:67, 9:29 or 9:123 is an apostate and may be killed with impunity. I believe that Zehudi Jasser and Khalim Massoud are sincere, sufferers of cognitive dissonance. Islam is what it is, not what they wish it were; it will never become what they want it to be.
--------------------------------------
A note from Radarsite: At the very heart of our prosecution of the GWOT lies the persisting quandry of the "moderate" - or as our friend Findalis offered - "moral" Muslim. Isn't it astonishing that, nine years after being viciously attacked by Islamic jihadis, we are still finding it difficult -- if not impossible - to satisfactorily identify our enemy? Who is our enemy and who is not? The more we learn about Islam the more muddled we become. Despite the overwhelming and undeniable evidence -- which we are all well aware of -- that in the last half century the vast majority of attacks against the West and the US were perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah, we still look for ways to minimize the extent of the Islamic threat and make ourselves more comfortable. Not all Muslims are bad people, we tell ourselves. Many Muslims are decent law-abiding citizens. We have Muslim friends and acquaintances who are beyond reproach. And, perhaps the biggest objection of all: if Islam itself is our enemy, then will we find ourselves at war with the entire Muslim world? Are we fated to have to fight all x-billion of them?

As you can see from the comments posted above, even the most informed and intelligent among us, such as our good friends and compatriots Findalis and Ben, find themselves at odds over this thorny issue. To Findalis, the existence of these moral Muslims gives reason for hope. To Ben, it is Islam itself, in whatever form, that is our sworn enemy -- and this includes all Muslims who follow the Koran. For Ben, hope is to be replaced by clarity and resolve.

Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify Radarsite's position on this seemingly intractable problem. Below are links to a sampling of the many articles I have written for Radarsite on this subject. There are many, many more. In a nutshell, I am a 'maximalist', I believe that Islam itself is the source of the evil which confronts us. I believe that Islam truly is a manifestation of utter evil. I further accept the premise that Islam, by its very nature, is, has been, and always will be the mortal enemy of the West, and that the two ideologies are inherently incompatible. It is the avowed mission of Islam to conquer the world for Allah, to make the world into a universal caliphate. This has been its unalterable goal since it inception. To ignore or misread this fundamental truth is to make a deadly mistake. And in our courts and universities, and in the hallowed halls of Congress, we are making these deadly mistakes daily.

The bottom line.
If I truly believed that what this country needed at this time in our history was more compassion, more tolerance and more understanding, then I would be calling for that. However, given the irrefutable evidence of the facts of our world, given that the common denominator of all of our Middle Eastern enemies, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, et al is Islam, given that this is -- whether we deem to acknowledge it or not -- a global war of Islam against everybody else. Whether it be in Africa or Malaysia or Dearborn, the enemy is openly and unequivocally Islam.

I believe that given the great changes that have occurred in this nation over the last half century, and given the perilous conditions we now find ourselves in, the last thing, the very last thing, we need is to continue trying to find more ways to humanize our Islamic foe. Our good-hearted tolerance of the intolerant has placed us in this untenable position, and if we are to survive we must abandon our present foreign-policy-by-wishful-thinking and confront the enemy head on. Now is the time. Tomorrow will be too late. We must stop trying to find common ground with Islam and, once and for all, recognize it for what it truly is: an aggressive bloodthirsty political movement based on "religious" teachings. If we are to win this virtual Clash of Civilizations we had better cease trying to understand the enemy and concentrate on defeating them. And, yes, I truly do believe that it is Us versus Them. - rg
------------------------------------
For further reading:
http://bestofradarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/rethinking-gwot-maximalists-versus.html

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/11/golden-key-those-illusive-moderate.html

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/blinded-by-hope-abandoned-by-reason.html

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/wrestling-with-mohammed-revisited.html

Sderot: Remembering the Holocaust. and Durban II

by Findalis


From the Sderot Media Center

Holocaust Remembrance Day: The Tragedy of Silence

by Anav Silverman

Today Israel marked Holocaust Remembrance Day. Standing on a street in Sderot, I listened quietly to the siren sound, remembering the tragedy of 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Europe, my great grandparents, uncles and aunts from Poland among them.

I’ve become used to sirens sounding in Sderot during my past two years here-the click of the intercom, followed by a female voice that calmly repeats Tzeva Adom, Tzeva Adom, or Color Red. The scenes that unfold usually entail people dashing into shelters-racing for 15 seconds that may mean the difference between life and death.

But now at this moment, the Holocaust siren gives me a moment to reflect. I watch passerby’s stop, Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbekistanis, Moroccans, Persians and the like; Israeli Jews from countries around the world who make up Sderot’s colorful cultural tapestry. We stand together to remember the tragedy of silence that cost the lives of so many innocent people in our nation.

It is this tragedy of silence which probably strikes hardest here in Sderot.

Eight years of Qassam attacks have wounded over 1,000 Israelis, destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes, and have left thousands of children psychologically traumatized. Today close to one million Israelis in southern Israel live under the threat of Palestinian rocket attack thanks to the financial aid and embedment from Iran.

Who will speak up for these Israelis who continue to be the targets of radical Islam in the form of Hamas rocket terror?

Sderot is targeted not because it is a city outside the 1967 green lines, nor because of an army base located in the city. Sderot is part of the UN Partition Plan of 1948 with a civilian population of 19,000, where over 5,000 residents have been forced to flee since Palestinian rocket fire began on the city in 2001.

Sderot is targeted simply because it is a Jewish city on the frontlines of Israel-an easy target for Palestinian terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction.

THE greatest testimony that the world is once again returning to its apathetic state of silence that defined the era of Nazi Germany was revealed no less ironically today at the Durban II conference when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was invited as a guest speaker. Moreover, Hans-Rudolf Merz, the president of Switzerland, a country that declared its “neutrality” during the Holocaust, agreed to meet with Ahmadinejad, who is a fervent Holocaust denier and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

According to an Associated Press report, the Swiss president defended his meeting with Ahmadinejad and said that the criticism of the meeting was unjustified, stating that “Switzerland is neutral and not part of any alliance.”

Ahmadinejad’s presence at Durban II is symbolic in that there has been no overwhelming international outcry against his views or the fact that he was invited to speak at the UN conference on racism.

Iran is considered the greatest threat to Israel’s survival. Although Iran, an oil-rich country, continues to claim that its nuclear program is meant to produce electricity, it remains clear to Israel that Tehran is intent on building nuclear weapons that could potentially cause massive destruction to the state.

SDEROT residents have been the silent targets of Islamic terror for too long. Last year on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, 13 rockets fell upon Sderot. Although rocket fire has significantly decreased since Operation Cast Lead, close to 200 rockets have still been fired at the western Negev region. If Israel does not effectively stand up for her citizens at home, who will stand up for Israel in the world?

As countries across the world show alarming acceptance of a blatantly anti-Semitic figure like Ahmadinejad, demonstrated in Durban II, the state of Israel and the Jewish people cannot allow silence to become a national policy in the face of anti-Semitic terror, be it rockets or rhetoric, at home or abroad.

In 1938 the world did nothing, said nothing while Hitler and his thugs accelerated Germany's slide into the madness that was the 'Final Solution'. We witnessed on Monday 100 nation rise and applaud Ahmadinejad in Geneva. There is only one nation that speaks for Israel and Jews around the world. It is Israel. It is a shame that the world has decided to turn its back and closed its ears to the cries of pain and anguish from Israelis. It is only Palestinian tears that matter to the world.

But I pray not to you, truth seeker. I once again ask you to remember the people of Sderot, and Israel in your prayers. To sign up for Code Red Alerts. To contact you Congress Representatives, Senators and President Obama. Contact your newspapers, radio, and other media outlits. And if you are able to, donate a few coins to the Sderot Media Center. Just click on the logo at the top or bottom of this post and follow the directions from there. It is time that the people of Sderot and Israel start having a loud voice screaming out their story too.

FDR and the Case of the Captured Enemy Combatants

From World Net Daily
Opinion by Ellis Washington.

FDR and the Nazi saboteur case
"I only wish President Bush and now President Obama would have taken the approach FDR took in the Nazi saboteur case, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), where in the midst of World War II eight Nazi terrorists were captured on the coasts of New York and Florida. After a summary trial in July 1942, six were summarily executed one month later after the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal. FDR, though a liberal socialist, was decisive in quickly and summarily punishing Nazi spies. Hitler did not try that stunt again".

-------------------------------------------------------------
Here, courtesy of The History Channel are the basic facts of the case.
In June 1942, eight German saboteurs were delivered to the east coast of the United States via U-boats, with the intent to attack, destroy and terrorise. But they were apprehended almost immediately, and six of the eight were executed... From their training to the aftermath of their botched mission... [these]trained saboteurs doomed themselves through mistrust, conflicting allegiances, and betrayal.

The first group of four saboteurs left by submarine in May 1942 from the German base at Lorient, France, and on May 28, the next group of four departed the same base. Each was destined to land at points on the Atlantic Coast of the United States familiar to the leader of that group. Four men, led by George John Dasch, age 39, landed on a beach near Long Island, New York on 13 June, 1942. Accompanying Dasch were Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, and Richard Quirin. On 17 June, 1942, the other group landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The leader was Edward John Kerling, with Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt. Both groups landed wearing complete or partial German uniforms to ensure treatment as prisoners of war rather than as spies if they were caught.

The Trial
The eight were tried before a Military Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Appeals were made to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. As a result, Dasch received a 30-year sentence, while Burger received a life sentence. The remaining six were executed by electric chair on 8 August, 1942. The eight men had been born in Germany and each had lived in the United States for substantial periods. Burger had become a naturalised American in 1933. Haupt had entered the United States as a child, gaining citizenship when his father was naturalised in 1930. Dasch had joined the Germany army at the age of 14 and served about 11 months as a clerk during the conclusion of World War I. He had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1927, and received an honourable discharge after a little more than a year of service. Quirin and Heinck had returned to Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the six others subsequent to September 11, 1939, and before December 7, 1941, apparently feeling their first loyalty was to the country of their birth. In April, 1948, President Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on condition of deportation. They were transported to the American Zone of Germany, where they were freed.
-----------------------------------------------------
A note from Radarsite: If ours is a nation founded on laws, and if these laws are founded on precedents, I offer the above article to acknowledge an important precedent in American jurisprudence. The very first objection raised by our pacifist/liberal Dems will most likely be that this was in a different time, under different circumstances. Obviously, this took place in a different -- and some would say, more exemplary -- time in our nation's history. But were the circumstances really all that different? Or, as I suspect, is it America that is different? In both cases we were viciously attacked, without warning, on our own soil by a ruthless alien power determined to defeat us. If anything, today's enemy poses an even greater existential threat to our nation.
How then do we explain the startling contrast between our ambivalent reactions to the horrors of 9/11 and the almost immediate display of visceral anger in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941; even though it could be argued that, though admittedly dishonorable and treacherous, the Japanese attacks were in fact a military attack against a military target, that actually resulted in less fatalities (2,403 compared to 2,986) than were incurred on 9/11—while virtually all of the 2,749 victims in New York City were innocent civilians. Where, we implore our leftist friends, is that righteous anger? What has happened to that steely resolve which we so courageously sustained throughout those terrible war years? How did we lose our way? And, most importantly, are we capable of regaining that 'steely resolve'? The travesty of the current trial of the captured Somali pirate in a NYC courtroom -- complete with ambitious defense attorneys, the impending release of enemy combatants from Gitmo, the Congressional investigations into allegations of torture of captured jihadis -- and a thousand more miserable examples answers the question, doesn't it?

Like it or not, we are at war, a war that our inexperienced and morally-conflicted new president and his leftist cabinet refuse to name or acknowledge.

But, today's Friday, and it's a beautiful day, and tomorrow's going to be even more beautiful. And I'm alive and breathing in the cool fresh air, and these days that's a major victory.
God bless America - rg

Do the Palestinians really want a state?

By Findalis



I am positive that the average Palestinian man or woman would take any decent agreement giving them their own nation and working in peaceful cooperation with their Israeli neighbors, create a Paradise on Earth. Most Palestinians work or have worked in Israel, many would be friendly with Israelis if they could (the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank kill such people, calling them traitors and collaborators.). There is a deep desire for peace among them.

The Palestinian Authority on the other hand may have no desire for a settlement to the stalemate that has boxed both sides into positions they cannot retreat from.

This is the premise that Robert D. Kaplan puts forward in this month's Atlantic Monthly.

The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time. The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to reach an accord of mutual recognition and land-for-peace has helped infect the globe with violence and radicalism—and has long been a bane of American foreign policy. While the problems of the Middle East cannot be substantially blamed on the injustice done to Palestinians, that injustice has nonetheless played a role in weakening America’s position in the region.

Obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence. Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

With Fatah and Hamas facing off against each other, the Palestinians are simply too divided to plausibly meet Israel across the table. And because the Palestinians are unable to cut a deal, a majority of Israelis, as shown by the recent election results, have apparently given up any hope for peace.

But there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless—a reason more profound than the political narrative would indicate. It is best explained by associate Johns Hopkins professor Jakub Grygiel, in his brilliant essay, “The Power of Statelessness: the Withering Appeal of Governing” (Policy Review April/May 2009). In it, Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness, as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

The closest that Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace was at the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak of the center-left Labor Party offered a slew of concessions to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—only to have Arafat reject them. Arafat’s epitaph was that he remained loyal to the cause of his people, that he never compromised, and that he was steadfast to the bitter end. He may have seen that as a more morally and emotionally satisfying conclusion to a life of statelessness than that of making the unenchanting concessions associated with achieving statehood.

Read the full article here.

If this report is right, then President Obama's effort to ram an agreement down the Israelis throats is doomed to failure. For it will always be in the best interest of the Palestinian leaders to reject any offer to them that doesn't include all the land from the river to the sea. In other words, unless they get it all and Israel is eliminated, then they will not take any deal.

It is in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to remain stateless and cry victim every time Israel tries to stop the terror that the Palestinian leadership uses to achieve their ends.
For once a nation has been formed, attacks such as the rockets falling into Israel from Gaza, suicide bombers, or the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers would and is considered an Act of War under International Law. Without the 'protection' of being stateless, the Palestinians would have to face Israel's wrath without International support.

Another consequence of the creation of a Palestinian state would be the removal of their special refugee status. Although the Saudi Peace Plan insists on a Law of Return, there is no Israeli government (on the left or the right) that will ever agree to such a demand. But for the sake of this article, let us say that the Palestinians do agree to drop this demand (Yassir Arafat refused a Palestinian nation in 2000 by doing this). Finally the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank would now be living in cities of their new nation, and the remaining refugees living in camps through out the Arab world could be relocated to the new nation, having gained the status of citizen of Palestine and losing the status of refugee.

For the average Palestinian this would be a boon. But for the leadership, this would be a nightmare. No longer would the world support through massive donations of food and monies the Palestinian people. Any agreement reached by both sides would have to include a date for ending refugee status. And thus funds. Such funds which are often diverted into Swiss bank accounts for the private use of the leadership and not the benefit of the people. This international gravy train would dry up, and the leadership would either have to beg more money from within the Muslim community and the US or EU. Eventually these funds would dry up too.

As things stand now, the PA has no reason to agree to anything except the full release to them of the land that is now Israel. Other than that, there will never be a peaceful solution to this problem. And just like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama just might come to realize that the PA and Hamas will never agree to anything that will end their free ride.

A great comment from Reaganite Republican Resistance

A note from Radarsite: Occasionally we receive a comment that is worthy of an article. The following from Reaganite Republican Resistance.com is a perfect example. I am posting this as a companion piece to Findalis important article above. The conclusions reached by both authors are so clear, so incontestable, that I find it incredible that virtually half of this country -- and a seeming majority of our EU "allies" -- still refuse to see it. And, what is worse, it is these very people who are presently running our foreign policy.
God help us. - rg
-------------------------------------

Truth is, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity... Truth is, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity- and Israelis are well aware that the Palestinians are not ready yet for land-for-peace... where's the precedent, Gaza? So they not only settled some accounts with Hamas before the misguided and undependable Obama was sworn-in, but now elected a rightist government, headed by Bibi Netanyahu... who refers to Gaza as "Hamasistan". Does that look like they are looking to follow Obama's lead, to not confront Tehran, and make ill-conceived deals with the Palestinians? Israel is the target of an existential threat from Iran and her proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, plus Syria... and cannot afford a Pollyanna, cafe-debate world view like Barack thinks is so modern and "cool". And Iran has promptly met Obama's futile gestures with contempt. These apocalyptic loons not only have no intention of stopping their nuclear weapons program, but consider his willingness to "talk without preconditions" nothing but a sign of weakness- an indicator of the "failure of the West."Ruthless and aggressive foes have no reason to take seriously a smiley plastic mannequin like Obama... they know he's not going to do anything. US allies such as Israel and Afghanistan will be force to take matters into their own hands. Obama, like Carter, will make the US an impotent, irrelevant bystander as events take their course... and nations like Russia, Venezuela, and China fill the power vacuum. Team Obama would be well-advised to keep an eye on the horizon anytime they're visiting their recalcitrant pals in Tehran... for a formation of Israeli F-16's coming-in at Mach 2. The IDF did us all a huge favor in 1983, taking out Saddam's reactor in the face of world condemnation... and they'll they'll take care of business again, reducing Iran's nuclear program to smoldering little bits.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2008/1/2telegram-for-iran-and-team-obama.htm

Do the Palestinians Really Want a State?

By Findalis



I am positive that the average Palestinian man or woman would take any decent agreement giving them their own nation and working in peaceful cooperation with their Israeli neighbors, create a Paradise on Earth. Most Palestinians work or have worked in Israel, many would be friendly with Israelis if they could (the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank kill such people, calling them traitors and collaborators.). There is a deep desire for peace among them.

The Palestinian Authority on the other hand may have no desire for a settlement to the stalemate that has boxed both sides into positions they cannot retreat from.

This is the premise that Robert D. Kaplan puts forward in this month's Atlantic Monthly.

The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time. The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to reach an accord of mutual recognition and land-for-peace has helped infect the globe with violence and radicalism—and has long been a bane of American foreign policy. While the problems of the Middle East cannot be substantially blamed on the injustice done to Palestinians, that injustice has nonetheless played a role in weakening America’s position in the region.

Obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence. Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

With Fatah and Hamas facing off against each other, the Palestinians are simply too divided to plausibly meet Israel across the table. And because the Palestinians are unable to cut a deal, a majority of Israelis, as shown by the recent election results, have apparently given up any hope for peace.

But there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless—a reason more profound than the political narrative would indicate. It is best explained by associate Johns Hopkins professor Jakub Grygiel, in his brilliant essay, “The Power of Statelessness: the Withering Appeal of Governing” (Policy Review April/May 2009). In it, Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness, as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

The closest that Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace was at the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak of the center-left Labor Party offered a slew of concessions to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—only to have Arafat reject them. Arafat’s epitaph was that he remained loyal to the cause of his people, that he never compromised, and that he was steadfast to the bitter end. He may have seen that as a more morally and emotionally satisfying conclusion to a life of statelessness than that of making the unenchanting concessions associated with achieving statehood.

Read the full article here.

If this report is right, then President Obama's effort to ram an agreement down the Israelis throats is doomed to failure. For it will always be in the best interest of the Palestinian leaders to reject any offer to them that doesn't include all the land from the river to the sea. In other words, unless they get it all and Israel is eliminated, then they will not take any deal.

It is in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to remain stateless and cry victim every time Israel tries to stop the terror that the Palestinian leadership uses to achieve their ends.
For once a nation has been formed, attacks such as the rockets falling into Israel from Gaza, suicide bombers, or the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers would and is considered an Act of War under International Law. Without the 'protection' of being stateless, the Palestinians would have to face Israel's wrath without International support.

Another consequence of the creation of a Palestinian state would be the removal of their special refugee status. Although the Saudi Peace Plan insists on a Law of Return, there is no Israeli government (on the left or the right) that will ever agree to such a demand. But for the sake of this article, let us say that the Palestinians do agree to drop this demand (Yassir Arafat refused a Palestinian nation in 2000 by doing this). Finally the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank would now be living in cities of their new nation, and the remaining refugees living in camps through out the Arab world could be relocated to the new nation, having gained the status of citizen of Palestine and losing the status of refugee.

For the average Palestinian this would be a boon. But for the leadership, this would be a nightmare. No longer would the world support through massive donations of food and monies the Palestinian people. Any agreement reached by both sides would have to include a date for ending refugee status. And thus funds. Such funds which are often diverted into Swiss bank accounts for the private use of the leadership and not the benefit of the people. This international gravy train would dry up, and the leadership would either have to beg more money from within the Muslim community and the US or EU. Eventually these funds would dry up too.

As things stand now, the PA has no reason to agree to anything except the full release to them of the land that is now Israel. Other than that, there will never be a peaceful solution to this problem. And just like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama just might come to realize that the PA and Hamas will never agree to anything that will end their free ride.