This is simply hilarious!
http://sixkidsandafulltimejob.blogspot.com/2006/08/passions.html
Friday, September 01, 2006
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Gideon Levy: Fed up with the whiney Israeli soldiers
Gideon positions the settlers as the enemy of the state. From a personal and a policy perspective. I think that it is shameful that after Israel unilaterally pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza - and we in turn receive a continuous barrage of kassams and katushas, an Israeli can still point to the settlers and say - "if it was not for you and this occupation, we would have peace." Have you lost it man?
Make sure you clarify who are our allies and who are our enemies. This is about the existence of Israel. Nothing less.
If you want to agrue policy, that is fine. Then there is room for discussion. But when you identify settlers as people that should not be protected by the IDF, you are calling a sect of our greatest citizens (educated, tax paying, soldiers) enemies. That is shameful.
------------
Haaretz
Last update - 09:59 27/08/2006
Fed up with the whiners
By Gideon Levy"The candle kids" grew up and became the "protest movement" of this war. The confused youth who sat crying with their guitars and candles in the city square in Tel Aviv after Rabin's assassination are now sitting in the Rose Garden opposite the Prime Minister's Office, no less confused, and seemingly protesting against the war - of course only after it ended. Just as it was impossible to know what the candle kids wanted, it is difficult to understand what the reservists and the bereaved families want. Most of their complaints should be directed at themselves: Where were you until now? If it is only the demand that some officials go home, it's a waste of their time and ours. Clones of those who are deposed will replace them very quickly and nothing will change. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz will go home, and Netanyahu, Mofaz and Barak will come to power. For the first time after many terrible years in which we killed and were killed for no reason, there are question marks hanging over the public discourse. That change should be welcomed. But those who examine the content of the new protest should not hold out great hopes. The arguments of the protesters come down to two main issues, both of them as narrow as the world of the reservist: the IDF wasn't prepared for the war, and the war was cut short. On the first matter, many are responsible, and the second issue doesn't warrant protest. Much weightier and deeper questions hover in the air about why we even went to this war, how it could have been avoided, why is war our only language, what are the limits of power that can be used and where are we going now. The new protest movement is not raising those questions. Even if this wave of protests succeeds, a commission of inquiry is established and two or three people even pay with their seats, nothing will change. Just as the protests of 1973 did not bring about the desired change, except for a few people removed from office, the protests of 2006 won't bring real change. Whining after the war is not a national agenda, and certainly not if it runs for its life from any of the main questions. If it is just the "orange" disengagement protesters in disguise, it even foretells new dangers. Above all, the petition signers and sit-in protesters in the Rose Garden should ask themselves where they were until now. Except for the "oranges" among them, most voted Kadima, maybe Likud or Labor, many of them served in reserves in the occupied territories, dealt with their personal affairs and kept quiet. For years they took direct or indirect part in worthless national projects, from building the wall to the settlement enterprise and deepening the occupation. With their own eyes they saw how the IDF was turned into an occupying police force, bullying the weak but untrained to deal with the strong. They protected settlers, saw the suffering caused by the occupation, were witness to or participated in abuse of Palestinians. The responsibility for the IDF's lack of preparation, therefore, is theirs, partly because of what they did and partly because of their silence. They cannot claim now that they were surprised by the IDF's failure to execute: they were there when the army changed its face. They knew all these years that checking IDs at roadblocks, invading bedrooms, chasing children in alleys and demolishing thousands of houses is no preparation for war. They were supposed to understand that the occupation army's activities in the territories inspires great hatred of us, that Israel's rejectionists policies endanger it more than anything else and that the real test of the army is not in the casbahs. Even the home front's lack of readiness should not have surprised them: a country that abuses its weak at times of quiet will do so in times of war, as well. What is so new and surprising about all this? The other matter, the halt in the fighting, certainly does not warrant protest, but actually a compliment. Instead of asking why the war broke out, the protesters are asking why it ended. If there is anything that the war's command deserves credit for it is its hesitation in the final stages of the war. It is a shame they did not hesitate sooner. And if we had continued the war, where exactly would we have ended up? It was the resolve, hubris and haste of the war's leadership in the first stages that were the original sin against which the protest should be directed. Above all, it is depressing to find out that none of the protesters are raising moral questions. A protest movement that says nothing about the terrible destruction we wreaked in Lebanon, how we killed hundreds of innocent civilians and turned tens of thousands into impoverished refugees is by definition not a moral movement. Even after it has been proved that the excessive force was not effective, no protest has been directed at it. How long will we only focus on ourselves and our distress? Is it too much to ask for the protesters, who are supposedly the cadres of the avant garde, to look for a moment at what we did to another nation? Why is it that after Sabra and Chatilla massacres, which were not even directly our handiwork, masses of people took to the streets and now nobody peeps about the destruction we sowed in Lebanon with our own hands, and for nothing? With such protest movements, Israel does not need the silent sheep that has so characterized it in recent years. We should be fed up with such whiners. Maybe they are brave soldiers on the battlefield, but on the fields of protest they are nothing more than cowardly soldiers.
Make sure you clarify who are our allies and who are our enemies. This is about the existence of Israel. Nothing less.
If you want to agrue policy, that is fine. Then there is room for discussion. But when you identify settlers as people that should not be protected by the IDF, you are calling a sect of our greatest citizens (educated, tax paying, soldiers) enemies. That is shameful.
------------
Haaretz
Last update - 09:59 27/08/2006
Fed up with the whiners
By Gideon Levy"The candle kids" grew up and became the "protest movement" of this war. The confused youth who sat crying with their guitars and candles in the city square in Tel Aviv after Rabin's assassination are now sitting in the Rose Garden opposite the Prime Minister's Office, no less confused, and seemingly protesting against the war - of course only after it ended. Just as it was impossible to know what the candle kids wanted, it is difficult to understand what the reservists and the bereaved families want. Most of their complaints should be directed at themselves: Where were you until now? If it is only the demand that some officials go home, it's a waste of their time and ours. Clones of those who are deposed will replace them very quickly and nothing will change. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz will go home, and Netanyahu, Mofaz and Barak will come to power. For the first time after many terrible years in which we killed and were killed for no reason, there are question marks hanging over the public discourse. That change should be welcomed. But those who examine the content of the new protest should not hold out great hopes. The arguments of the protesters come down to two main issues, both of them as narrow as the world of the reservist: the IDF wasn't prepared for the war, and the war was cut short. On the first matter, many are responsible, and the second issue doesn't warrant protest. Much weightier and deeper questions hover in the air about why we even went to this war, how it could have been avoided, why is war our only language, what are the limits of power that can be used and where are we going now. The new protest movement is not raising those questions. Even if this wave of protests succeeds, a commission of inquiry is established and two or three people even pay with their seats, nothing will change. Just as the protests of 1973 did not bring about the desired change, except for a few people removed from office, the protests of 2006 won't bring real change. Whining after the war is not a national agenda, and certainly not if it runs for its life from any of the main questions. If it is just the "orange" disengagement protesters in disguise, it even foretells new dangers. Above all, the petition signers and sit-in protesters in the Rose Garden should ask themselves where they were until now. Except for the "oranges" among them, most voted Kadima, maybe Likud or Labor, many of them served in reserves in the occupied territories, dealt with their personal affairs and kept quiet. For years they took direct or indirect part in worthless national projects, from building the wall to the settlement enterprise and deepening the occupation. With their own eyes they saw how the IDF was turned into an occupying police force, bullying the weak but untrained to deal with the strong. They protected settlers, saw the suffering caused by the occupation, were witness to or participated in abuse of Palestinians. The responsibility for the IDF's lack of preparation, therefore, is theirs, partly because of what they did and partly because of their silence. They cannot claim now that they were surprised by the IDF's failure to execute: they were there when the army changed its face. They knew all these years that checking IDs at roadblocks, invading bedrooms, chasing children in alleys and demolishing thousands of houses is no preparation for war. They were supposed to understand that the occupation army's activities in the territories inspires great hatred of us, that Israel's rejectionists policies endanger it more than anything else and that the real test of the army is not in the casbahs. Even the home front's lack of readiness should not have surprised them: a country that abuses its weak at times of quiet will do so in times of war, as well. What is so new and surprising about all this? The other matter, the halt in the fighting, certainly does not warrant protest, but actually a compliment. Instead of asking why the war broke out, the protesters are asking why it ended. If there is anything that the war's command deserves credit for it is its hesitation in the final stages of the war. It is a shame they did not hesitate sooner. And if we had continued the war, where exactly would we have ended up? It was the resolve, hubris and haste of the war's leadership in the first stages that were the original sin against which the protest should be directed. Above all, it is depressing to find out that none of the protesters are raising moral questions. A protest movement that says nothing about the terrible destruction we wreaked in Lebanon, how we killed hundreds of innocent civilians and turned tens of thousands into impoverished refugees is by definition not a moral movement. Even after it has been proved that the excessive force was not effective, no protest has been directed at it. How long will we only focus on ourselves and our distress? Is it too much to ask for the protesters, who are supposedly the cadres of the avant garde, to look for a moment at what we did to another nation? Why is it that after Sabra and Chatilla massacres, which were not even directly our handiwork, masses of people took to the streets and now nobody peeps about the destruction we sowed in Lebanon with our own hands, and for nothing? With such protest movements, Israel does not need the silent sheep that has so characterized it in recent years. We should be fed up with such whiners. Maybe they are brave soldiers on the battlefield, but on the fields of protest they are nothing more than cowardly soldiers.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Olmert cannot remain in the prime minister's office
Olmert cannot remain in the prime minister's office
By Ari ShavitEhud Olmert may decide to accept the French proposal for a cease-fire and unconditional surrender to Hezbollah. That is his privilege. Olmert is a prime minister whom journalists invented, journalists protected, and whose rule journalists preserved. Now the journalists are saying run away. That's legitimate. Unwise, but legitimate. However, one thing should be clear: If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime minister for even one more day. Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say - oops, I made a mistake. That was not the intention. Pass me a cigar, please. There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month. He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome. He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions. He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army's original plan, much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented. And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp. He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north. He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front. Still, if Olmert had come to his senses as Golda Meir did during the Yom Kippur War, if he had become a leader, established a war cabinet and called the nation to a supreme effort that would change the face of the battle, a penetrating discussion of his failures could be postponed. But in blinking first over the past 24 hours, he has become an incorrigible political personality. Therefore, the day Nasrallah comes out of his bunker and declares victory to the whole world, Olmert must not be in the prime minister's office. Post-war battered and bleeding Israel needs a new start and a new leader. It needs a real prime minister.
By Ari ShavitEhud Olmert may decide to accept the French proposal for a cease-fire and unconditional surrender to Hezbollah. That is his privilege. Olmert is a prime minister whom journalists invented, journalists protected, and whose rule journalists preserved. Now the journalists are saying run away. That's legitimate. Unwise, but legitimate. However, one thing should be clear: If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime minister for even one more day. Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say - oops, I made a mistake. That was not the intention. Pass me a cigar, please. There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month. He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome. He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions. He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army's original plan, much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented. And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp. He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north. He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front. Still, if Olmert had come to his senses as Golda Meir did during the Yom Kippur War, if he had become a leader, established a war cabinet and called the nation to a supreme effort that would change the face of the battle, a penetrating discussion of his failures could be postponed. But in blinking first over the past 24 hours, he has become an incorrigible political personality. Therefore, the day Nasrallah comes out of his bunker and declares victory to the whole world, Olmert must not be in the prime minister's office. Post-war battered and bleeding Israel needs a new start and a new leader. It needs a real prime minister.
Monday, August 07, 2006
My wife sent me this article a couple of weeks ago.
This is a log of our email discussion afterwards - to understand the islamist motivations:
ME: This is the most ridiculous analysis and article that I have read in a long time. Thanks Rochelle for the daily dose of humor. Your buddy Feiglin should distance himself from wackos like this. I fear for him though, that these people represent the vast majority of his constituencies. Too bad.
WIFE: I agree that the closing statements are a little messianic- but I would appreciate an explanation as to why the analysis of the situation is "ridiculous" and provides you with your "daily dose of humor" (no more dilbert?)
ME: Dilbert is much more real than this load of #$@&We are not fighting a religious war. This war - which is global - is not against muslims, but against islamic facism. It is not about God. Ours or theirs. It is about power. Arafat was not frum at all. He had the kafiah for political purposes. Syria is not frum at all. They are 100% secular. Iran is somewhat frum, but not the trouble makers. Ahmadinejad is secular. Egypt, Jordan, etc. - are secular states. Iraq was secular. It is a war of propaganda and power. And we are losing, since they have time, the mobility, flexibility, scalability and, most importantly, the will.
Specifically with the current war with Hezbalah:
Bottom line, victory is very different for Israel and Hezbollah. This is a lose-lose Israeli situation and a win-win Hezbollah situation. Hezbollah cannot beat Israel, they can only terrorize it. And Israel cannot 100% uproot Hezbollah without destroying it at the choke point - Syria and Iran. Therefore, this battle is a sure win for Hezbollah and global terrorism in general, and a sure loss for Israel and the free world in general.
WIFE: Spoken like a true 'realist'
Please explain your words "this war is not against muslims but against Islamic fascism". I'm not asking sarcastically , but really do not understand. These leaders may not be "frum" but what is their goal? For Islam to rule the world. They are fighting a religious war. Every attack is carried out in the name of g-d. If this is just lip service - what is their goal? What is their goal in firing missiles into Israel - if not to kill jews and be rewarded by allah? I agree that the situation is not good for us - because their will is greater. They do not care if they die or if many others on their side die - because of their beliefs! If we do not really know why we are here - or why this land is important to us - then their will is greater. This is what Manhigut Yehudit is trying to instill in people - an appreciation of their jewish heritage, and Torah values - in order to strengthen us and our will.
I agree that most of these leaders are secular and are just after world power. But what motivates their soldiers are purely religious motives.
ME: Rochelle, Rochelle...
As Rabbi Wein always says - people, individuals make history. The leaders of the Arab world control their feudal society via propaganda. Today the focus may be religious, but that is just semantics. Hitler's propaganda was not religious, And he was even more effective in creating loyal killing machines. Japan invented suicide bombing without any religious angle. The communist leaders - the ultimate athiests - were the same. The leaders want power, and now the Arabs have it. They have the world by the short and curlies, since the population is so large and the % of oil production is so large. That is it.
(Parenthetically, from an economic perspective, there is only one world super power left. There were a few 20-60 years ago. Those countries, mainly Russia, Spain, France, and others, have strong economic ties. Up and coming super powers, mostly China, have strong economic ties to the Arab countries. This expands the Arab global influence and power).
The great thing about religion (and also communism) is that it is an idealogy and therefore has no borders. Loyal Al Qaida soldiers can be from Indonisia, India, Chechnia, Gaza, or 7 shfartzas from Miami. Fantastic strategy. Capitalism, westernism, etc. is an idealogy of selfishness. No concept of 'cause'. Therefore, only the US and a bit of the UK is fighting this global war. We do not have the 'no border' rule for troops. The free world is not together. Israel is only joining in when it hits its borders. Spain, Australia, Bali, India, etc - treat it like a crime not a war. So do the democrats in the US. So do some left wing in Israel.
Why Israel is Losing the War -- and How They Can WIN!
by: Shmuel Sackett
International Director, Manhigut Yehudit
Av 5766 (July, 06)
Ever wondered why the same Israeli army that defeated Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967 in just 6 days cannot end a 13 year Intifada?
Ever wondered how IDF commandos traveled thousands of miles to Uganda in 1976 to rescue hostages in Entebbe but can't figure out how to cross the street to save three soldiers?
Arab soldiers used to tremble when they saw a soldier. Now they laugh.
Arab pilots used to shake in fear at the thought of flying near the Israeli air force. Now unmanned drones, kassam missiles and katyusha rockets kill dozens of people.
What happened? When did the Arab world become so powerful and the Jews so weak?
You know when? When they switched the fight from "land" to "God".
In 1967 the secular Arabs fought the secular Jews over land. That's a war Israelis know how to fight. But for the last 13+ years the religious Arabs have been fighting the secular Jews over God. This war, is something the Israelis don't want and, frankly, don't know anything about.
Don't believe me? Let's examine some terms:
Before every suicide bomber blows himself up -- in his attempt to take 20 Jews with him -- he screams "Allah Akbar". It means "God is great".
Yassir Arafat, of cursed memory, always used the term "Jihad". It means "Holy war".
The word "Hizzbolah" means "Army of God".
The fighting arm of the Fatah is called "The Al Aksa Brigade" named after their mosque on our holiest -- yet virtually forgotten -- site.
The Arabs know exactly what they are fighting for. They do not want land. The recent katyusha rockets on Tzefat is not because they want to move close to the holy Ari's ritual bath. The rockets on Meron are not because they want a good spot near the burial site of ancient Sage Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. They are not interested in living in Tiberias, Carmiel or even Haifa.
The kassam missiles from Gaza are not because they want to occupy Sderot, Netivot or Ashkelon.
They are fighting God.
Read that line again. They are fighting God. The Creator Himself is under attack. Don't think the katyushas, which started on the 17th of Tammuz, was a coincidence. Hizzbolah knows exactly what they are doing. They are continuing the fight started by Titus. They are the Haman of today. They are Amalek. And the existing Israeli leadership doesn't have a clue...
What is needed to end this war and bring victory to the Jewish people is leadership that understands what the fight is all about. Israel needs leaders who are connected to God and who are willing to do whatever it takes to sanctify His great and holy Name.
The last thing Ehud Olmert and Shimon Peres want is a religious war against the Arabs. The last thing Defense Minister Amir Peretz understands is how to fight Arabs who are motivated by religious beliefs. These men know how to fight Jews who are spiritually driven but not Arabs. They had no problem supporting and orchestrating the betrayal of Jewish land a year ago and have sworn allegiance to the flag of disengagement. But fighting religious oriented Arabs? Admitting that this war is really against Islam and not just some crazy guys in Gaza and South Lebanon? Be willing to remove the desecration on the Temple Mount in response to missiles in Haifa? Enact communal punishment against the cheering, Hizzbolah flag-waving mobs in Ramallah and Jenin? Never! The Olmert-Peretz-Peres team will never do that. They would rather sacrifice pure, innocent Jewish soldiers in some crazy ground war than fight in the name of the God of Israel.
This is why we are losing. After 2,000 years God returned the Temple Mount to the Jewish People and we threw it back in His face. After 2,000 years God gave us back the entire Promised Land and we chose to remain in Teaneck, Cedarhurst and Beverly Hills. After 2,000 years God gathered the exiles from the four corners of the earth in order to build a Jewish State in Israel and we turned it into a European metropolis with bars, discos and MTV. This is exactly what the prophet Jeremiah: "I brought you into a fruitful land, to eat its fruit and bounty but you came and contaminated my land... My people have exchanged its glory for something of no avail... they have forsaken Me."
This is why the IDF has become a non-entity. This is why the Arabs are laughing at us. Little "Palestinian" kids throw rocks and soldiers run away. Young Arab men wrap their faces in kaffiyas and send chills down the spine of Israelis and some insignificant coward named Nassralah, who is "bravely" hiding beneath 50 tons of steel enforced concrete sends over 1,000,000 Jews running like mice into bomb shelters.
With God's help, this will all change very soon. New leaders will take over Israel who truly believe in "Hashem Tzevakot" (the name used to describe God with great military might). New leaders, whose every fiber of their being is used to sanctify His great and holy Name, will soon lead the country according to authentic Jewish values and finally, the old Jew will return to lead the IDF. This will be the Jew who fights like Moses, Joshua and King David. This Jew serves God, takes no prisoners and works tirelessly at permanently eradicating evil from the world.
When this happens... when Jews truly understand their place in the world and accept upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, the famous verse from the Scroll of Esther will once again come to reality; "And the Jews struck at all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, slaughtering and annihilating, they treated their enemies as they pleased." May that great and awesome day happen soon. Am Yisrael Chai!
This is a log of our email discussion afterwards - to understand the islamist motivations:
ME: This is the most ridiculous analysis and article that I have read in a long time. Thanks Rochelle for the daily dose of humor. Your buddy Feiglin should distance himself from wackos like this. I fear for him though, that these people represent the vast majority of his constituencies. Too bad.
WIFE: I agree that the closing statements are a little messianic- but I would appreciate an explanation as to why the analysis of the situation is "ridiculous" and provides you with your "daily dose of humor" (no more dilbert?)
ME: Dilbert is much more real than this load of #$@&We are not fighting a religious war. This war - which is global - is not against muslims, but against islamic facism. It is not about God. Ours or theirs. It is about power. Arafat was not frum at all. He had the kafiah for political purposes. Syria is not frum at all. They are 100% secular. Iran is somewhat frum, but not the trouble makers. Ahmadinejad is secular. Egypt, Jordan, etc. - are secular states. Iraq was secular. It is a war of propaganda and power. And we are losing, since they have time, the mobility, flexibility, scalability and, most importantly, the will.
Specifically with the current war with Hezbalah:
Bottom line, victory is very different for Israel and Hezbollah. This is a lose-lose Israeli situation and a win-win Hezbollah situation. Hezbollah cannot beat Israel, they can only terrorize it. And Israel cannot 100% uproot Hezbollah without destroying it at the choke point - Syria and Iran. Therefore, this battle is a sure win for Hezbollah and global terrorism in general, and a sure loss for Israel and the free world in general.
WIFE: Spoken like a true 'realist'
Please explain your words "this war is not against muslims but against Islamic fascism". I'm not asking sarcastically , but really do not understand. These leaders may not be "frum" but what is their goal? For Islam to rule the world. They are fighting a religious war. Every attack is carried out in the name of g-d. If this is just lip service - what is their goal? What is their goal in firing missiles into Israel - if not to kill jews and be rewarded by allah? I agree that the situation is not good for us - because their will is greater. They do not care if they die or if many others on their side die - because of their beliefs! If we do not really know why we are here - or why this land is important to us - then their will is greater. This is what Manhigut Yehudit is trying to instill in people - an appreciation of their jewish heritage, and Torah values - in order to strengthen us and our will.
I agree that most of these leaders are secular and are just after world power. But what motivates their soldiers are purely religious motives.
ME: Rochelle, Rochelle...
As Rabbi Wein always says - people, individuals make history. The leaders of the Arab world control their feudal society via propaganda. Today the focus may be religious, but that is just semantics. Hitler's propaganda was not religious, And he was even more effective in creating loyal killing machines. Japan invented suicide bombing without any religious angle. The communist leaders - the ultimate athiests - were the same. The leaders want power, and now the Arabs have it. They have the world by the short and curlies, since the population is so large and the % of oil production is so large. That is it.
(Parenthetically, from an economic perspective, there is only one world super power left. There were a few 20-60 years ago. Those countries, mainly Russia, Spain, France, and others, have strong economic ties. Up and coming super powers, mostly China, have strong economic ties to the Arab countries. This expands the Arab global influence and power).
The great thing about religion (and also communism) is that it is an idealogy and therefore has no borders. Loyal Al Qaida soldiers can be from Indonisia, India, Chechnia, Gaza, or 7 shfartzas from Miami. Fantastic strategy. Capitalism, westernism, etc. is an idealogy of selfishness. No concept of 'cause'. Therefore, only the US and a bit of the UK is fighting this global war. We do not have the 'no border' rule for troops. The free world is not together. Israel is only joining in when it hits its borders. Spain, Australia, Bali, India, etc - treat it like a crime not a war. So do the democrats in the US. So do some left wing in Israel.
Why Israel is Losing the War -- and How They Can WIN!
by: Shmuel Sackett
International Director, Manhigut Yehudit
Av 5766 (July, 06)
Ever wondered why the same Israeli army that defeated Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967 in just 6 days cannot end a 13 year Intifada?
Ever wondered how IDF commandos traveled thousands of miles to Uganda in 1976 to rescue hostages in Entebbe but can't figure out how to cross the street to save three soldiers?
Arab soldiers used to tremble when they saw a soldier. Now they laugh.
Arab pilots used to shake in fear at the thought of flying near the Israeli air force. Now unmanned drones, kassam missiles and katyusha rockets kill dozens of people.
What happened? When did the Arab world become so powerful and the Jews so weak?
You know when? When they switched the fight from "land" to "God".
In 1967 the secular Arabs fought the secular Jews over land. That's a war Israelis know how to fight. But for the last 13+ years the religious Arabs have been fighting the secular Jews over God. This war, is something the Israelis don't want and, frankly, don't know anything about.
Don't believe me? Let's examine some terms:
Before every suicide bomber blows himself up -- in his attempt to take 20 Jews with him -- he screams "Allah Akbar". It means "God is great".
Yassir Arafat, of cursed memory, always used the term "Jihad". It means "Holy war".
The word "Hizzbolah" means "Army of God".
The fighting arm of the Fatah is called "The Al Aksa Brigade" named after their mosque on our holiest -- yet virtually forgotten -- site.
The Arabs know exactly what they are fighting for. They do not want land. The recent katyusha rockets on Tzefat is not because they want to move close to the holy Ari's ritual bath. The rockets on Meron are not because they want a good spot near the burial site of ancient Sage Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. They are not interested in living in Tiberias, Carmiel or even Haifa.
The kassam missiles from Gaza are not because they want to occupy Sderot, Netivot or Ashkelon.
They are fighting God.
Read that line again. They are fighting God. The Creator Himself is under attack. Don't think the katyushas, which started on the 17th of Tammuz, was a coincidence. Hizzbolah knows exactly what they are doing. They are continuing the fight started by Titus. They are the Haman of today. They are Amalek. And the existing Israeli leadership doesn't have a clue...
What is needed to end this war and bring victory to the Jewish people is leadership that understands what the fight is all about. Israel needs leaders who are connected to God and who are willing to do whatever it takes to sanctify His great and holy Name.
The last thing Ehud Olmert and Shimon Peres want is a religious war against the Arabs. The last thing Defense Minister Amir Peretz understands is how to fight Arabs who are motivated by religious beliefs. These men know how to fight Jews who are spiritually driven but not Arabs. They had no problem supporting and orchestrating the betrayal of Jewish land a year ago and have sworn allegiance to the flag of disengagement. But fighting religious oriented Arabs? Admitting that this war is really against Islam and not just some crazy guys in Gaza and South Lebanon? Be willing to remove the desecration on the Temple Mount in response to missiles in Haifa? Enact communal punishment against the cheering, Hizzbolah flag-waving mobs in Ramallah and Jenin? Never! The Olmert-Peretz-Peres team will never do that. They would rather sacrifice pure, innocent Jewish soldiers in some crazy ground war than fight in the name of the God of Israel.
This is why we are losing. After 2,000 years God returned the Temple Mount to the Jewish People and we threw it back in His face. After 2,000 years God gave us back the entire Promised Land and we chose to remain in Teaneck, Cedarhurst and Beverly Hills. After 2,000 years God gathered the exiles from the four corners of the earth in order to build a Jewish State in Israel and we turned it into a European metropolis with bars, discos and MTV. This is exactly what the prophet Jeremiah: "I brought you into a fruitful land, to eat its fruit and bounty but you came and contaminated my land... My people have exchanged its glory for something of no avail... they have forsaken Me."
This is why the IDF has become a non-entity. This is why the Arabs are laughing at us. Little "Palestinian" kids throw rocks and soldiers run away. Young Arab men wrap their faces in kaffiyas and send chills down the spine of Israelis and some insignificant coward named Nassralah, who is "bravely" hiding beneath 50 tons of steel enforced concrete sends over 1,000,000 Jews running like mice into bomb shelters.
With God's help, this will all change very soon. New leaders will take over Israel who truly believe in "Hashem Tzevakot" (the name used to describe God with great military might). New leaders, whose every fiber of their being is used to sanctify His great and holy Name, will soon lead the country according to authentic Jewish values and finally, the old Jew will return to lead the IDF. This will be the Jew who fights like Moses, Joshua and King David. This Jew serves God, takes no prisoners and works tirelessly at permanently eradicating evil from the world.
When this happens... when Jews truly understand their place in the world and accept upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, the famous verse from the Scroll of Esther will once again come to reality; "And the Jews struck at all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, slaughtering and annihilating, they treated their enemies as they pleased." May that great and awesome day happen soon. Am Yisrael Chai!
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The most unsuccessful war
The most unsuccessful war
By Ze'ev Sternhell
No situation can continue to exist for long without an ideological reason. That's how when once it was clear that it was not achieving its aims, an unsuccessful military campaign was upgraded with the wave of a magic wand to the level of a war of survival. When everyone understood that a moral reason had to be found both for the dimensions of the destruction sowed in Lebanon and the killing of the civilian population there, and for the Israeli dead and wounded (nobody is even talking about the exposure of the entire civilian population in the North of Israel to enemy fire while people are kept in disgraceful conditions in bomb shelters), a war of survival was invented, which by nature must be long and exhausting. That is how a campaign of collective punishment that was begun in haste, without proper judgment and on the basis of incorrect assessments, including promises that the army is incapable of fulfilling, turned into a war of life and death, if not some kind of second War of Independence. In the press there have even been embarrassing comparisons to the struggle against Nazism, comparisons that are not only a crude distortion of history, but disgrace the memory of the Jews who were exterminated. The architect of this unsuccessful campaign has outdone himself: In order to cover up his failures, he delivered a poor man's pseudo-Churchillian speech, and promised us more "pain, tears and blood." There really is no limit to shamelessness. It must be said in favor of the government spokesmen who are in greatest demand on the foreign stations, from the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman to Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- that none of them has stooped to propaganda of this kind.
At the same time, the campaign's goals have been reduced and shrunk during these three weeks. From restoring Israel's power of deterrence, eliminating Hezbollah, and disarming it immediately -- after three weeks we have arrived at the present goal, which is the dismantling of the forward outposts of Hezbollah and the deployment of an international force to defend the North of Israel from the possibility of a repeat attack. At this point, the average citizen, who is not working day and night in the corridors of power and is not sunning himself near the generals' command rooms, is at a loss. Is this how we are restoring the IDF's power of deterrence? Haven't we accomplished exactly the opposite? Hasn't it become clear to the entire world that our "invincible" air force not only failed for three weeks to end the barrage of rockets, but also even needs an emergency airlift of war materiel, as during the 1973 Yom Kippur War? Moreover, the ordinary citizen is asking himself another question: If several thousand guerrilla fighters do constitute an existential danger to a country with a strike force and weaponry that are unparalleled in this part of the world, how is it that during the past five or six years we heard nothing to that effect from government leaders? It is true that since 2000 we have not been preoccupied with anything except the Palestinian issue. Hypnotized by the "Palestinian danger," Israel turned its back during the past two years on all national efforts that preceded the disengagement from Gaza, and then the split in the Likud and the establishment of Kadima, as a prologue to the second major campaign, "convergence" behind the separation fence. And when the present government was formed, a national agenda was formulated for the next two, if not four, years, whose main component is fulfillment of the "Sharon legacy": a unilateral drawing of borders in the territories, pulverizing them into cantons and in effect eliminating the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state in them. This led citizens to understand that this is the issue that will determine Israel's future. The clearest evidence of the national order of priorities is the situation in which the IDF's fighting units find themselves. It was no secret that the army almost stopped training in large units and complex operations, and became totally immersed in the struggle against the Palestinian uprising. When infantry brigades turn into a police force specializing in breaking down doors and walls in refugee camps, or in pursuit of groups of terrorists in olive orchards, when the criterion for the success of a senior officer is the number of wanted men he has managed to catch rather than his operational talents and ability to command large units -- the army deteriorates. I cannot recall that the reserve divisions that were drafted on Yom Kippur in 1973, or the Israelis who returned as individuals from abroad in order to join the fighting, were in need of training and refresher exercises. Nevertheless, the Agranat Commission of inquiry was established to investigate, among other things, the level of the forces' battle preparedness. The Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War were wars of survival, and through them the IDF was revealed in all its greatness. The present war is the most unsuccessful we have ever had; it is much worse than the first Lebanon War, which at least was properly prepared, and in which, with the exception of gaining control over the Beirut-Damascus highway, the army more or less achieved its goals as determined by then-defense minister Ariel Sharon. It is frightening to think that those who decided to embark on the present war did not even dream of its outcome and its destructive consequences in almost every possible realm, of the political and psychological damage, the serious blow to the government's credibility, and yes -- the killing of children in vain. The cynicism being demonstrated by government spokesmen, official and otherwise, including several military correspondents, in the face of the disaster suffered by the Lebanese, amazes even someone who has long since lost many of his youthful illusions.
By Ze'ev Sternhell
No situation can continue to exist for long without an ideological reason. That's how when once it was clear that it was not achieving its aims, an unsuccessful military campaign was upgraded with the wave of a magic wand to the level of a war of survival. When everyone understood that a moral reason had to be found both for the dimensions of the destruction sowed in Lebanon and the killing of the civilian population there, and for the Israeli dead and wounded (nobody is even talking about the exposure of the entire civilian population in the North of Israel to enemy fire while people are kept in disgraceful conditions in bomb shelters), a war of survival was invented, which by nature must be long and exhausting. That is how a campaign of collective punishment that was begun in haste, without proper judgment and on the basis of incorrect assessments, including promises that the army is incapable of fulfilling, turned into a war of life and death, if not some kind of second War of Independence. In the press there have even been embarrassing comparisons to the struggle against Nazism, comparisons that are not only a crude distortion of history, but disgrace the memory of the Jews who were exterminated. The architect of this unsuccessful campaign has outdone himself: In order to cover up his failures, he delivered a poor man's pseudo-Churchillian speech, and promised us more "pain, tears and blood." There really is no limit to shamelessness. It must be said in favor of the government spokesmen who are in greatest demand on the foreign stations, from the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman to Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- that none of them has stooped to propaganda of this kind.
At the same time, the campaign's goals have been reduced and shrunk during these three weeks. From restoring Israel's power of deterrence, eliminating Hezbollah, and disarming it immediately -- after three weeks we have arrived at the present goal, which is the dismantling of the forward outposts of Hezbollah and the deployment of an international force to defend the North of Israel from the possibility of a repeat attack. At this point, the average citizen, who is not working day and night in the corridors of power and is not sunning himself near the generals' command rooms, is at a loss. Is this how we are restoring the IDF's power of deterrence? Haven't we accomplished exactly the opposite? Hasn't it become clear to the entire world that our "invincible" air force not only failed for three weeks to end the barrage of rockets, but also even needs an emergency airlift of war materiel, as during the 1973 Yom Kippur War? Moreover, the ordinary citizen is asking himself another question: If several thousand guerrilla fighters do constitute an existential danger to a country with a strike force and weaponry that are unparalleled in this part of the world, how is it that during the past five or six years we heard nothing to that effect from government leaders? It is true that since 2000 we have not been preoccupied with anything except the Palestinian issue. Hypnotized by the "Palestinian danger," Israel turned its back during the past two years on all national efforts that preceded the disengagement from Gaza, and then the split in the Likud and the establishment of Kadima, as a prologue to the second major campaign, "convergence" behind the separation fence. And when the present government was formed, a national agenda was formulated for the next two, if not four, years, whose main component is fulfillment of the "Sharon legacy": a unilateral drawing of borders in the territories, pulverizing them into cantons and in effect eliminating the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state in them. This led citizens to understand that this is the issue that will determine Israel's future. The clearest evidence of the national order of priorities is the situation in which the IDF's fighting units find themselves. It was no secret that the army almost stopped training in large units and complex operations, and became totally immersed in the struggle against the Palestinian uprising. When infantry brigades turn into a police force specializing in breaking down doors and walls in refugee camps, or in pursuit of groups of terrorists in olive orchards, when the criterion for the success of a senior officer is the number of wanted men he has managed to catch rather than his operational talents and ability to command large units -- the army deteriorates. I cannot recall that the reserve divisions that were drafted on Yom Kippur in 1973, or the Israelis who returned as individuals from abroad in order to join the fighting, were in need of training and refresher exercises. Nevertheless, the Agranat Commission of inquiry was established to investigate, among other things, the level of the forces' battle preparedness. The Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War were wars of survival, and through them the IDF was revealed in all its greatness. The present war is the most unsuccessful we have ever had; it is much worse than the first Lebanon War, which at least was properly prepared, and in which, with the exception of gaining control over the Beirut-Damascus highway, the army more or less achieved its goals as determined by then-defense minister Ariel Sharon. It is frightening to think that those who decided to embark on the present war did not even dream of its outcome and its destructive consequences in almost every possible realm, of the political and psychological damage, the serious blow to the government's credibility, and yes -- the killing of children in vain. The cynicism being demonstrated by government spokesmen, official and otherwise, including several military correspondents, in the face of the disaster suffered by the Lebanese, amazes even someone who has long since lost many of his youthful illusions.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Palestinians are better off under "Israeli occpupation"
See the article from Globes (Israel's WSJ) below, ranking world happiness.
Palestinian territories ranks 128 - ahead of egypt (151), Syria (142), and Jordan (141). These are the alternative countries that actually Israel fought in 1967, and captured THEIR land. Bottom line, the palestians are in better shape under "israeli occupation" than living in Syria, Egypt or Jordan!
Israel 58th in UK university's World Map of Happiness
University of Leicester: Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria are the happiest of 178 countries.
Aaron Rosen 30 Jul 06 15:34
Six countries from Europe and two each from Asia and North America are the ten happiest countries in the world according to the first ever World Map of Happiness compiled by an analytic social psychologist Adrian White at University of Leicester in the UK. The top happiest countries in the world are Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, the Bahamas, Finland, Sweden, Bhutan, Brunei, and Canada.
Israel is ranked 58th in the list of 178 countries, ahead of France (62nd), Japan (90th), and not far behind Italy (50th) and the UK (41st). Germany is in 35th place, the US in 23rd, China 82nd, and India 125th.
Lebanon was ranked 113th, even before the present war. Among Arab countries, Saudi Arabia is in 31st place.
White found happiness to most closely associated with health, followed by wealth and then education. He quantified and analyzed data from UNESCO, UNHDR, the World Health Organization (WHO), the CIA, the New Economics Foundation (a UK organization), the Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer to create a global projection of subjective well-being.
The result is a “satisfaction with life” (SWL) index. Israel accumulated 223.33 points. According to the survey, Israel’s life expectancy is 79.7 years (a figure apparently taken from the CIA database). The US, by contrast, accumulated 246.67 points, with a life expectancy of 75.4 years. Israel’s GDP per capita is $24,600 (according to the CIAfigure for 2006), compared with the US figure of $41,800. The figures are in purchasing power parity (PPP), not the nominal dollar value.
Israel has 93 points for access to education, compared with a score of 94.6 for the US, 157 for the UK, and 109 for France.
At the bottom of the World Happiness Map were the African countries Burundi, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo (which is holding its first democratic elections in decades today).
White said, “There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per capita, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy.”
White added, “The concept of happiness, or satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology, most closely associated with new developments in positive psychology…There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator in conjunction with measures of wealth. A recent BBC survey found that 81% of the population think the government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier.”
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on July 30, 2006
Palestinian territories ranks 128 - ahead of egypt (151), Syria (142), and Jordan (141). These are the alternative countries that actually Israel fought in 1967, and captured THEIR land. Bottom line, the palestians are in better shape under "israeli occupation" than living in Syria, Egypt or Jordan!
Israel 58th in UK university's World Map of Happiness
University of Leicester: Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria are the happiest of 178 countries.
Aaron Rosen 30 Jul 06 15:34
Six countries from Europe and two each from Asia and North America are the ten happiest countries in the world according to the first ever World Map of Happiness compiled by an analytic social psychologist Adrian White at University of Leicester in the UK. The top happiest countries in the world are Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, the Bahamas, Finland, Sweden, Bhutan, Brunei, and Canada.
Israel is ranked 58th in the list of 178 countries, ahead of France (62nd), Japan (90th), and not far behind Italy (50th) and the UK (41st). Germany is in 35th place, the US in 23rd, China 82nd, and India 125th.
Lebanon was ranked 113th, even before the present war. Among Arab countries, Saudi Arabia is in 31st place.
White found happiness to most closely associated with health, followed by wealth and then education. He quantified and analyzed data from UNESCO, UNHDR, the World Health Organization (WHO), the CIA, the New Economics Foundation (a UK organization), the Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer to create a global projection of subjective well-being.
The result is a “satisfaction with life” (SWL) index. Israel accumulated 223.33 points. According to the survey, Israel’s life expectancy is 79.7 years (a figure apparently taken from the CIA database). The US, by contrast, accumulated 246.67 points, with a life expectancy of 75.4 years. Israel’s GDP per capita is $24,600 (according to the CIAfigure for 2006), compared with the US figure of $41,800. The figures are in purchasing power parity (PPP), not the nominal dollar value.
Israel has 93 points for access to education, compared with a score of 94.6 for the US, 157 for the UK, and 109 for France.
At the bottom of the World Happiness Map were the African countries Burundi, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo (which is holding its first democratic elections in decades today).
White said, “There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per capita, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy.”
White added, “The concept of happiness, or satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology, most closely associated with new developments in positive psychology…There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator in conjunction with measures of wealth. A recent BBC survey found that 81% of the population think the government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier.”
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on July 30, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
The truth about the 4 UN deaths in Lebanan
Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on CBC radio, and had some very interesting news about the UN observer post hit by Israeli shells; the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover.
"We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."
"We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."
Now is the time for a better use of air power
Interesting expert analysis on using air not ground forces in Lebanan.
Analysis: Now is the time for a better use of air power
SHMUEL L. GORDON, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
A hard and fast rule of war is that the use of ground forces in urban combat is directly related to loss of life. In Gaza, the IDF has somehow learned to go in and get out with few casualties. Hizbullah is a different enemy, with different equipment, a different surrounding population and, perhaps, a greater motivation to fight.
Wednesday's casualties in Bint Jbail may indicate that Hizbullah has managed, yet again, to neutralize the IAF's technological advantages. The proper use of air power against a terrorist or guerrilla formation takes time, and herein lies Israel's problem.
Last week in Maroun a-Ras, several soldiers died fighting Hizbullah around their fortified bunkers. The correct use of military power in that situation would have been to use small special forces teams equipped with nothing more than GPS trackers, laser pointers and Uzi submachine guns.
The elite forces, instead of going into the bunkers, could have laser-painted the bunkers' positions to the IAF, which would have destroyed them. That would be the correct way to leverage Israel's technological advantage.
The massive bombings - the IAF's use of brute force - has its limitations with respect to high-value targets, and the deployment of ground troops neutralizes our advantages. When a soldier meets a soldier, when a Kalashnikov meets an M-16, when the fight is eye to eye, there are no technological advantages. It will always be like this.
Hizbullah has no qualms about losing 50 fighters, whereas we Israelis do, and the Islamists know it. Wednesday's battle will give Hizbullah a huge morale boost - regardless of how many fighters they have lost.
During the Lebanon War, I was in charge of the air force's underground command bunker. Every time the infantrymen got themselves into trouble, they would call on the IAF to "open the roads." This usually entailed civilian casualties. The air force chief at the time, Maj.-Gen. David Ivri, demanded that the ground forces provide quality intelligence to ensure that civilians were not being accidentally targeted. That is still the key now.
Counterterror air warfare strategy has developed a great deal in recent years. It is now based on new intelligence technologies that have enabled airborne systems to locate small mobile vehicles such as rocket launchers, and even a pair of terrorists trying to launch a Kassam rocket, and precision-guided munitions, which have made it possible to hit such targets quickly and accurately.
The most important characteristic of these systems is their ability to preserve the lives of innocent people located near the targeted terrorist.
To find, designate (by laser-painter, for example) and hit terrorists in a limited time frame, teams of special forces should join the battle. The new strategy integrates intelligence, air power and special forces into a combined force that plans its missions as surgical operations. Intelligence officers search for the highest-value targets, including leaders of the terrorist organization, its training infrastructure, professionals who produce dangerous bombs, and those who recruit suicide bombers.
The strategy is based on the assumption that it is almost impossible to demolish terror organizations in a short, intense war. On the contrary, the preferred scenario is a war of attrition. Step by step, operation by operation, the light at the end of the tunnel becomes brighter. Counterterror air warfare doctrine emphasizes using air power in a different way than in large-scale conventional warfare. The new doctrine prefers a longer but lower-intensity conflict.
The Israel Air Force's operations in the current campaign do not even come close to conforming to this concept. The government is attempting to use the air force's brute force to crush Hizbullah and to compel the powerless Lebanese government to control southern Lebanon with its own toothless army.
Throughout military history, there have been gaps between doctrine and reality. In the current case, the gap is particularly large, created by the government's ignorance of the appropriate strategy. The cabinet is ignoring, or simply doesn't understand, the principles of modern counterterrorism, especially those relating to air power.
The cabinet needs to take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the intelligence/air power/special forces mixture. It is the duty of the IDF General Staff to acquaint the civilian leadership with the limitations and capabilities of air power. The government need to have the information to set the goals, which will then dictate the military means and strategy. There is no alternative.
Dr. Shmuel L. Gordon, a colonel (res.) in the IAF, is head of the Technology and National Security program at the Holon Institute of Technology, and an expert in national security, air warfare and counterterrorism. He is also the author of The Vulture and the Snake: Counter-Guerrilla Air Warfare: The War in Southern Lebanon.
Analysis: Now is the time for a better use of air power
SHMUEL L. GORDON, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
A hard and fast rule of war is that the use of ground forces in urban combat is directly related to loss of life. In Gaza, the IDF has somehow learned to go in and get out with few casualties. Hizbullah is a different enemy, with different equipment, a different surrounding population and, perhaps, a greater motivation to fight.
Wednesday's casualties in Bint Jbail may indicate that Hizbullah has managed, yet again, to neutralize the IAF's technological advantages. The proper use of air power against a terrorist or guerrilla formation takes time, and herein lies Israel's problem.
Last week in Maroun a-Ras, several soldiers died fighting Hizbullah around their fortified bunkers. The correct use of military power in that situation would have been to use small special forces teams equipped with nothing more than GPS trackers, laser pointers and Uzi submachine guns.
The elite forces, instead of going into the bunkers, could have laser-painted the bunkers' positions to the IAF, which would have destroyed them. That would be the correct way to leverage Israel's technological advantage.
The massive bombings - the IAF's use of brute force - has its limitations with respect to high-value targets, and the deployment of ground troops neutralizes our advantages. When a soldier meets a soldier, when a Kalashnikov meets an M-16, when the fight is eye to eye, there are no technological advantages. It will always be like this.
Hizbullah has no qualms about losing 50 fighters, whereas we Israelis do, and the Islamists know it. Wednesday's battle will give Hizbullah a huge morale boost - regardless of how many fighters they have lost.
During the Lebanon War, I was in charge of the air force's underground command bunker. Every time the infantrymen got themselves into trouble, they would call on the IAF to "open the roads." This usually entailed civilian casualties. The air force chief at the time, Maj.-Gen. David Ivri, demanded that the ground forces provide quality intelligence to ensure that civilians were not being accidentally targeted. That is still the key now.
Counterterror air warfare strategy has developed a great deal in recent years. It is now based on new intelligence technologies that have enabled airborne systems to locate small mobile vehicles such as rocket launchers, and even a pair of terrorists trying to launch a Kassam rocket, and precision-guided munitions, which have made it possible to hit such targets quickly and accurately.
The most important characteristic of these systems is their ability to preserve the lives of innocent people located near the targeted terrorist.
To find, designate (by laser-painter, for example) and hit terrorists in a limited time frame, teams of special forces should join the battle. The new strategy integrates intelligence, air power and special forces into a combined force that plans its missions as surgical operations. Intelligence officers search for the highest-value targets, including leaders of the terrorist organization, its training infrastructure, professionals who produce dangerous bombs, and those who recruit suicide bombers.
The strategy is based on the assumption that it is almost impossible to demolish terror organizations in a short, intense war. On the contrary, the preferred scenario is a war of attrition. Step by step, operation by operation, the light at the end of the tunnel becomes brighter. Counterterror air warfare doctrine emphasizes using air power in a different way than in large-scale conventional warfare. The new doctrine prefers a longer but lower-intensity conflict.
The Israel Air Force's operations in the current campaign do not even come close to conforming to this concept. The government is attempting to use the air force's brute force to crush Hizbullah and to compel the powerless Lebanese government to control southern Lebanon with its own toothless army.
Throughout military history, there have been gaps between doctrine and reality. In the current case, the gap is particularly large, created by the government's ignorance of the appropriate strategy. The cabinet is ignoring, or simply doesn't understand, the principles of modern counterterrorism, especially those relating to air power.
The cabinet needs to take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the intelligence/air power/special forces mixture. It is the duty of the IDF General Staff to acquaint the civilian leadership with the limitations and capabilities of air power. The government need to have the information to set the goals, which will then dictate the military means and strategy. There is no alternative.
Dr. Shmuel L. Gordon, a colonel (res.) in the IAF, is head of the Technology and National Security program at the Holon Institute of Technology, and an expert in national security, air warfare and counterterrorism. He is also the author of The Vulture and the Snake: Counter-Guerrilla Air Warfare: The War in Southern Lebanon.
Israel has to end this
The article below I agree with some and disagree with some. The underlying point is accurate: Israel has to finish this ASAP. If the goals are reached 100% or not. There should be an internal military time limit on this. We just lost 9 soldiers yesterday (pics below of funeral reactions that I added). The majority of Israelis have no idea why we are sending in ground troops. Terrible political job by Olmert. Why are 9 soldiers' lives cheaper than Lebanese civilians? Israel should have flattened the key Hezbollah villages with the IAF. Any civilians that did not heed to the IDF's 3-day warning, too bad. Did we learn nothing from Jenin? The world will always label us immoral. Lets at least be moral to ourselves.
Also, politically we must exit. If not, the world, including Israelis, will quickly forget why this started and just blame Israel. That will be a super victory for Hezbollah.
Rattling the Cage: There is a limit
Larry Derfner, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
I wouldn't have joined last weekend's demonstration in Tel Aviv against Israel's war in Lebanon, because I think this war was forced on us.
If Hizbullah had been allowed to kidnap two IDF soldiers and kill eight others without being made to pay a wholly "disproportionate" price, if the IDF had settled for a tit-for-tat response, then Hizbullah would feel free to attack again anytime, and the security and well-being of northern Israel would be at Hassan Nasrallah's mercy.
But if Israel is still fighting in Lebanon after another week, then I'm going to be looking for an antiwar protest to join - and my guess is that such a protest, if it's still necessary, will attract a lot more people than the 2,500 who showed up for the first one.
So let the IDF take a few more days to kill as many Hizbullah men and destroy as much of their weaponry as possible - but then this has to stop. There is just so much we can reasonably expect to achieve in this war, there is only so high a price we can pay - or make Lebanon pay - and just so great a risk we should take.
WE'VE ABOUT reached the limit of what's reasonable. If the IDF keeps going, it will be fighting on overconfidence, and that's a dangerous thing. The war could get out of control and become one Israel can neither win nor walk away from. It's happened to Israel before in Lebanon. It's happened now in Iraq to America, Israel's patron in the new war against Hizbullah.
When the fighting started I felt sure the Olmert government wasn't going to get swell-headed, that it had in mind an intense, two-or-three-week, in-and-out operation meant to leave Hizbullah severely wounded and reluctant to try Israel again. It seemed a worthy goal that could be achieved at an acceptable price.
But I'm not so sure about the Olmert government now. Between the genuine "moral clarity" of Israel's cause, the war's wall-to-wall domestic support, the encouragement that's come in from abroad, and the green light from Bush, the government seems to have become giddy. Its war goals, its conditions for a cease-fire, are unrealistic, if not impossible.
If the government stands by these conditions - which the Bush administration, in its well-meaning, pea-brained way, is backing - there's no telling how long the war could last or where it might lead.
Israel is saying it won't stop fighting until Hizbullah is supplanted in southern Lebanon by the Lebanese army and/or an international force, one that will be committed to actually fighting off Hizbullah and enforcing the cease-fire.
GOOD LUCK. Which countries are going to put their soldiers in such a spot? They'd have to be crazy. If the Bush administration honestly thought this was such a good idea, it would be offering at least a few thousand US troops for the mission - but it's not, because the last time America sent troops to Lebanon, Hizbullah blew up 241 of them, along with 58 from France, and that was the end of that peace-keeping mission.
Right now, the war in Iraq is more than enough Mideast adventure for the forces of democracy, thank you. If Israel is waiting for someone to "hand off" to in southern Lebanon, it will be waiting a long time.
The government's other "non-negotiable" condition for a cease-fire is that Hizbullah free the two kidnapped IDF soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. I find it impossible to believe that any level-headed Israeli really expects Nasrallah to just give the two up, unconditionally, without getting at least a couple hundred of his own men out of Israeli prisons in return. Yet the Olmert government has committed itself to this demand, and it will be difficult to abandon, but it's going to have to be abandoned if the war is ever going to end.
I think everyone knows we're going to have to trade to get Goldwasser and Regev back, only not everyone - nor any politician I know of - is willing to admit it.
THIS WAR has become too much for civilians on either side to bear. A million residents of the Israeli North are at their wits' end, in their third week of living in bomb shelters or at their relatives' houses further south.
In Lebanon, of course, it's far worse. Whatever the justice of Israel's cause, whatever Hizbullah's immoral use of the Lebanese civilian population, the IDF cannot wreak "collateral damage" on civil Lebanese society without limit. The deaths to innocents and destruction to infrastructure there may be unintentional, but it is also inevitable.
Morally, there is just so far we can go, and we've gone far enough.
What worries me most, though, is that Hizbullah will land one of its "surprises," which will cause not only intolerable Israeli casualties but also compel us to escalate in kind - because if we let them land the last blow, they win and we lose.
This is the road to quagmire. It can happen again, unless we wrap this thing up.
Israeli-US policy is to bring Hizbullah to its knees; but Hizbullah is in another league militarily from that of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorists. The only conceivable way to break Hizbullah is to fight an all-out, open-ended war in Lebanon, and probably in Syria and Iran as well.
In such a war, the chance of bringing Hizbullah to its knees would be dwarfed by the chance of catastrophe.
But if Israel winds the war up now, it can still win. Once the fighting stops and the dust settles, Hizbullah will retain plenty of capability to hurt Israel, but I don't think it will be in a hurry to try. Lebanon does not want to go through this again, and neither do the leaders of the Arab world.
Israel has exacted a very high price for Hizbullah's aggression, and by doing so it just may have achieved the one realistic, legitimate goal of this war - the reestablishment of Israeli military deterrence.
If this goal is accomplished, the war will have been a success. But we can only find out once the war is over.
Also, politically we must exit. If not, the world, including Israelis, will quickly forget why this started and just blame Israel. That will be a super victory for Hezbollah.
Rattling the Cage: There is a limit
Larry Derfner, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26, 2006
I wouldn't have joined last weekend's demonstration in Tel Aviv against Israel's war in Lebanon, because I think this war was forced on us.
If Hizbullah had been allowed to kidnap two IDF soldiers and kill eight others without being made to pay a wholly "disproportionate" price, if the IDF had settled for a tit-for-tat response, then Hizbullah would feel free to attack again anytime, and the security and well-being of northern Israel would be at Hassan Nasrallah's mercy.
But if Israel is still fighting in Lebanon after another week, then I'm going to be looking for an antiwar protest to join - and my guess is that such a protest, if it's still necessary, will attract a lot more people than the 2,500 who showed up for the first one.
So let the IDF take a few more days to kill as many Hizbullah men and destroy as much of their weaponry as possible - but then this has to stop. There is just so much we can reasonably expect to achieve in this war, there is only so high a price we can pay - or make Lebanon pay - and just so great a risk we should take.
WE'VE ABOUT reached the limit of what's reasonable. If the IDF keeps going, it will be fighting on overconfidence, and that's a dangerous thing. The war could get out of control and become one Israel can neither win nor walk away from. It's happened to Israel before in Lebanon. It's happened now in Iraq to America, Israel's patron in the new war against Hizbullah.
When the fighting started I felt sure the Olmert government wasn't going to get swell-headed, that it had in mind an intense, two-or-three-week, in-and-out operation meant to leave Hizbullah severely wounded and reluctant to try Israel again. It seemed a worthy goal that could be achieved at an acceptable price.
But I'm not so sure about the Olmert government now. Between the genuine "moral clarity" of Israel's cause, the war's wall-to-wall domestic support, the encouragement that's come in from abroad, and the green light from Bush, the government seems to have become giddy. Its war goals, its conditions for a cease-fire, are unrealistic, if not impossible.
If the government stands by these conditions - which the Bush administration, in its well-meaning, pea-brained way, is backing - there's no telling how long the war could last or where it might lead.
Israel is saying it won't stop fighting until Hizbullah is supplanted in southern Lebanon by the Lebanese army and/or an international force, one that will be committed to actually fighting off Hizbullah and enforcing the cease-fire.
GOOD LUCK. Which countries are going to put their soldiers in such a spot? They'd have to be crazy. If the Bush administration honestly thought this was such a good idea, it would be offering at least a few thousand US troops for the mission - but it's not, because the last time America sent troops to Lebanon, Hizbullah blew up 241 of them, along with 58 from France, and that was the end of that peace-keeping mission.
Right now, the war in Iraq is more than enough Mideast adventure for the forces of democracy, thank you. If Israel is waiting for someone to "hand off" to in southern Lebanon, it will be waiting a long time.
The government's other "non-negotiable" condition for a cease-fire is that Hizbullah free the two kidnapped IDF soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. I find it impossible to believe that any level-headed Israeli really expects Nasrallah to just give the two up, unconditionally, without getting at least a couple hundred of his own men out of Israeli prisons in return. Yet the Olmert government has committed itself to this demand, and it will be difficult to abandon, but it's going to have to be abandoned if the war is ever going to end.
I think everyone knows we're going to have to trade to get Goldwasser and Regev back, only not everyone - nor any politician I know of - is willing to admit it.
THIS WAR has become too much for civilians on either side to bear. A million residents of the Israeli North are at their wits' end, in their third week of living in bomb shelters or at their relatives' houses further south.
In Lebanon, of course, it's far worse. Whatever the justice of Israel's cause, whatever Hizbullah's immoral use of the Lebanese civilian population, the IDF cannot wreak "collateral damage" on civil Lebanese society without limit. The deaths to innocents and destruction to infrastructure there may be unintentional, but it is also inevitable.
Morally, there is just so far we can go, and we've gone far enough.
What worries me most, though, is that Hizbullah will land one of its "surprises," which will cause not only intolerable Israeli casualties but also compel us to escalate in kind - because if we let them land the last blow, they win and we lose.
This is the road to quagmire. It can happen again, unless we wrap this thing up.
Israeli-US policy is to bring Hizbullah to its knees; but Hizbullah is in another league militarily from that of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorists. The only conceivable way to break Hizbullah is to fight an all-out, open-ended war in Lebanon, and probably in Syria and Iran as well.
In such a war, the chance of bringing Hizbullah to its knees would be dwarfed by the chance of catastrophe.
But if Israel winds the war up now, it can still win. Once the fighting stops and the dust settles, Hizbullah will retain plenty of capability to hurt Israel, but I don't think it will be in a hurry to try. Lebanon does not want to go through this again, and neither do the leaders of the Arab world.
Israel has exacted a very high price for Hizbullah's aggression, and by doing so it just may have achieved the one realistic, legitimate goal of this war - the reestablishment of Israeli military deterrence.
If this goal is accomplished, the war will have been a success. But we can only find out once the war is over.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Good versus Evil
This is a great quote on how to understand objective good and objective evil:
"Here is the simple fact. Tomorrow, if the terrorists (Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaida, etc.) stop killing and lay down their arms, the violence in the Middle East and Iraq will stop. Tomorrow, if Israel throws all its weapons into the Mediterranean Sea, there will be another Holocaust."
This is from Bill O'Reilly from Fox News.
"Here is the simple fact. Tomorrow, if the terrorists (Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaida, etc.) stop killing and lay down their arms, the violence in the Middle East and Iraq will stop. Tomorrow, if Israel throws all its weapons into the Mediterranean Sea, there will be another Holocaust."
This is from Bill O'Reilly from Fox News.
Can Israel Win?
I am getting really disturbed / frightened about the situation in Israel. Read the article below. It is somewhat of a military analysis of the situation according to Ralph Peters. I believe much of what he said is based on fact, but, according to the Israeli military experts that I have spoken with, Israel is in a much better situation than he portrays. Bottom line, victory is very different for Israel and Hezbollah. This is a lose-lose Israeli situation and a win-win Hezbollah situation. Hezbollah cannot beat Israel, they can only terrorize it. And Israel cannot 100% uproot Hezbollah with destroying it at the choke point - Syria and Iran. Therefore, this battle is a sure win for Hezbollah and global terrorism in general, and a sure loss for Israel and the free world in general.
CAN ISRAEL WIN?
From the New York Post
By Ralph Peters
July 22, 2006 -- ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write. But it's true. And the situation's worsening each day.
A U.S. government official put it to me this way: "Israel's got the clock, but Hezbollah's got the time." The sands of the hourglass favor the terrorists - every day they hold out and drop more rockets on Israel, Hezbollah scores a propaganda win.
All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely. But for Israel to emerge the acknowledged winner, it has to shatter Hezbollah. Yet Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.
Israel has to pull itself together now, to send in ground troops in sufficient numbers, with fierce resolve to do what must be done: Root out Hezbollah fighters and kill them. This means Israel will suffer painful casualties - more today than if the Israeli Defense Force had gone in full blast at this fight's beginning.
The situation is grave. A perceived Hezbollah win will be a massive victory for terror, as well as a triumph for Iran and Syria. And everybody loves a winner - especially in the Middle East, where Arabs and Persians have been losing so long.
Israel can't afford a Hezbollah win. America can't afford it. Civilization can't afford it. Yet it just might happen.
Israel tried to make war halfway, and only made a mess. Let's review where the situation stands:
* By trying to spare Israeli lives through the use of airpower and long-range artillery fire instead of ground troops, the IDF played into Hezbollah's hands. The terrorists could claim that Israel feared them. Meanwhile, Israeli targeting proved shockingly sloppy, failing to ravage Hezbollah, while hitting civilians - to the international media's delight.
* The IDF is readying a reinforced brigade of armor and 3,000 to 5,000 troops for a "limited incursion" into southern Lebanon. Won't work. Not enough troops. And Hezbollah's had time to get locked and loaded. This is going to be messy - any half-hearted Israeli effort will fall short.
* Famed for its penetration, Israeli intelligence failed this time. It didn't detect the new weapons Iran and Syria had provided to Hezbollah, from anti-ship missiles to longer-range rockets. And, after years of spying, it couldn't find Hezbollah.
This should set off global alarm bells: If Hezbollah can hide rockets, Iran can hide nukes.
* The media sided heavily with Hezbollah (surprise, surprise). Rocket attacks on Israel were reported clinically, but IDF strikes on Lebanon have been milked for every last drop of emotion. We hear about broken glass in Haifa - and bleeding babies in Beirut.
* Washington rejoiced when several Arab governments criticized Hezbollah for its actions. But the Arab street, Shia and Sunni, has coalesced behind Hezbollah. Saudi and Egyptian government statements are worth about as much as a greeting card from Marie Antoinette on New Year's Day, 1789.
* Syria and Iran are getting a free ride. Hezbollah fights and dies, Damascus and Tehran collect the dividends.
* Israel looks irresolute and incapable - encouraging its enemies.
* The "world community" wants a cease-fire - which would only benefit the terrorists. Hezbollah would claim (accurately) that it had withstood Israel's assault. Couldn't get a better terrorist recruiting advertisement.
* A cease-fire would be under U.N. auspices. Gee, thanks. No U.N. force would protect Israel's interests, but plenty of U.N. contingents would cooperate with or turn a blind eye to the terrorists. Think Russia's an honest broker? Ask its Jews who fled to Israel. Would French troops protect Israeli interests? Ask the Jews Vichy bureaucrats packed off to the death camps. (The French are more anti-Semitic than the Germans - just less efficient.)
* One bright spot: The Bush administration continues to resist international attempts to bully Israel into a premature cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is flying off to the big falafel stand as a token gesture, not to interfere with Israel's self-defense.
But the clock's ticking. Washington can only buy Israel so much time.
* Every rocket that lands in Israel is a propaganda victory for Hezbollah. After 1,000-plus Israeli air-strikes, the rockets keep falling, and Israel looks impotent. The price of sparing Israeli infantrymen has been the elevation of Hezbollah to heroic status through the Muslim world.
* The Olmert government tried to wage war on the cheap. Such efforts always raise the cost in the end. Olmert resembles President Bill Clinton - willing to lob bombs from a distance, but unwilling to accept that war means friendly casualties.
* Israel needs to grasp the power of the global media. Long proud of going its own way in the face of genocidal anti-Semitism, Israel now has to recognize that the media can overturn the verdict of the battlefield. Even if Israel pulls off a last-minute win on the ground, the anti-Israel propaganda machine has been given so big a head-start that Hezbollah still may be portrayed as the victor.
The situation is grim. Israel looks more desperate every day, while Hezbollah appears more defiant.
This is ultimately about far more than a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. In the long run, it's about Israel's survival. And about preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran and the strengthening of the rogue regime in Syria. It's also about the future of Lebanon - everybody's victim.
The mess Israel has made of its opportunity to smack down Hezbollah should be a wake-up call to the country's leadership. The IDF looks like a pathetic shadow of the bold military that Ariel Sharon led into Egypt three decades ago. The IDF's intelligence, targeting and planning were all deficient. Technology failed to vanquish flesh and blood. The myth of the IDF's invincibility just shattered.
If Israel can't turn this situation around quickly, the failure will be a turning point in its history. And not for the better.
Ralph Peters' new book is "Never Quit the Fight."
CAN ISRAEL WIN?
From the New York Post
By Ralph Peters
July 22, 2006 -- ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write. But it's true. And the situation's worsening each day.
A U.S. government official put it to me this way: "Israel's got the clock, but Hezbollah's got the time." The sands of the hourglass favor the terrorists - every day they hold out and drop more rockets on Israel, Hezbollah scores a propaganda win.
All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely. But for Israel to emerge the acknowledged winner, it has to shatter Hezbollah. Yet Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.
Israel has to pull itself together now, to send in ground troops in sufficient numbers, with fierce resolve to do what must be done: Root out Hezbollah fighters and kill them. This means Israel will suffer painful casualties - more today than if the Israeli Defense Force had gone in full blast at this fight's beginning.
The situation is grave. A perceived Hezbollah win will be a massive victory for terror, as well as a triumph for Iran and Syria. And everybody loves a winner - especially in the Middle East, where Arabs and Persians have been losing so long.
Israel can't afford a Hezbollah win. America can't afford it. Civilization can't afford it. Yet it just might happen.
Israel tried to make war halfway, and only made a mess. Let's review where the situation stands:
* By trying to spare Israeli lives through the use of airpower and long-range artillery fire instead of ground troops, the IDF played into Hezbollah's hands. The terrorists could claim that Israel feared them. Meanwhile, Israeli targeting proved shockingly sloppy, failing to ravage Hezbollah, while hitting civilians - to the international media's delight.
* The IDF is readying a reinforced brigade of armor and 3,000 to 5,000 troops for a "limited incursion" into southern Lebanon. Won't work. Not enough troops. And Hezbollah's had time to get locked and loaded. This is going to be messy - any half-hearted Israeli effort will fall short.
* Famed for its penetration, Israeli intelligence failed this time. It didn't detect the new weapons Iran and Syria had provided to Hezbollah, from anti-ship missiles to longer-range rockets. And, after years of spying, it couldn't find Hezbollah.
This should set off global alarm bells: If Hezbollah can hide rockets, Iran can hide nukes.
* The media sided heavily with Hezbollah (surprise, surprise). Rocket attacks on Israel were reported clinically, but IDF strikes on Lebanon have been milked for every last drop of emotion. We hear about broken glass in Haifa - and bleeding babies in Beirut.
* Washington rejoiced when several Arab governments criticized Hezbollah for its actions. But the Arab street, Shia and Sunni, has coalesced behind Hezbollah. Saudi and Egyptian government statements are worth about as much as a greeting card from Marie Antoinette on New Year's Day, 1789.
* Syria and Iran are getting a free ride. Hezbollah fights and dies, Damascus and Tehran collect the dividends.
* Israel looks irresolute and incapable - encouraging its enemies.
* The "world community" wants a cease-fire - which would only benefit the terrorists. Hezbollah would claim (accurately) that it had withstood Israel's assault. Couldn't get a better terrorist recruiting advertisement.
* A cease-fire would be under U.N. auspices. Gee, thanks. No U.N. force would protect Israel's interests, but plenty of U.N. contingents would cooperate with or turn a blind eye to the terrorists. Think Russia's an honest broker? Ask its Jews who fled to Israel. Would French troops protect Israeli interests? Ask the Jews Vichy bureaucrats packed off to the death camps. (The French are more anti-Semitic than the Germans - just less efficient.)
* One bright spot: The Bush administration continues to resist international attempts to bully Israel into a premature cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is flying off to the big falafel stand as a token gesture, not to interfere with Israel's self-defense.
But the clock's ticking. Washington can only buy Israel so much time.
* Every rocket that lands in Israel is a propaganda victory for Hezbollah. After 1,000-plus Israeli air-strikes, the rockets keep falling, and Israel looks impotent. The price of sparing Israeli infantrymen has been the elevation of Hezbollah to heroic status through the Muslim world.
* The Olmert government tried to wage war on the cheap. Such efforts always raise the cost in the end. Olmert resembles President Bill Clinton - willing to lob bombs from a distance, but unwilling to accept that war means friendly casualties.
* Israel needs to grasp the power of the global media. Long proud of going its own way in the face of genocidal anti-Semitism, Israel now has to recognize that the media can overturn the verdict of the battlefield. Even if Israel pulls off a last-minute win on the ground, the anti-Israel propaganda machine has been given so big a head-start that Hezbollah still may be portrayed as the victor.
The situation is grim. Israel looks more desperate every day, while Hezbollah appears more defiant.
This is ultimately about far more than a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. In the long run, it's about Israel's survival. And about preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran and the strengthening of the rogue regime in Syria. It's also about the future of Lebanon - everybody's victim.
The mess Israel has made of its opportunity to smack down Hezbollah should be a wake-up call to the country's leadership. The IDF looks like a pathetic shadow of the bold military that Ariel Sharon led into Egypt three decades ago. The IDF's intelligence, targeting and planning were all deficient. Technology failed to vanquish flesh and blood. The myth of the IDF's invincibility just shattered.
If Israel can't turn this situation around quickly, the failure will be a turning point in its history. And not for the better.
Ralph Peters' new book is "Never Quit the Fight."
The Blog's new format
My blog will now take a new format:
Instead of being the author of all original articles, for which I do not have time, I will post interesting articles from other sources and provide some brief comments.
Enjoy.
Instead of being the author of all original articles, for which I do not have time, I will post interesting articles from other sources and provide some brief comments.
Enjoy.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Is There Really a Cheney Controversy?
So VP Cheney shot his hunting partner (Harry Whittington) accidentally while hunting. I wish Harry Whittington well. But besides for his well being...who the hell cares? Why is the media treating this like Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff? The Dems have unlimited ammunition on this administration. Why are they fishing (or hunting) for humdrum and, frankly, unimportant controversy? Because he may have waited a few hours to report the incident so it would not be on the cover of every Sunday paper in the country? Please. The Dems and their media buddies have got to regroup and focus if they want to win in 2008.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Political Attacks at King's Funeral
Former US President – Jimmy Carter – spoke at the funeral of Coretta Scott King and took advantage of the podium to criticize the current president’s political policies. He directly compared the embarrassing wire tapping and surveillance of Martin Luther King, his family and his friends – to the NSA’s controversial semi-domestic wire tapping and surveillance program of suspected terrorists. This is wrong and despicable on so many levels. Firstly, no former president should ever criticize the policies or actions of a current sitting president – especially to his face. Secondly, to capture attention for your own politic agenda instead of honoring the dead at a funeral is outrageous. I want to offer an excerpt from an article by Neil Cavuto from Fox News on the incident. He hit the nail right on the head:
“They're [funerals] not about the people looking at the box, but the person in that box. They're about the voice now silent, not the voices still loud. It's not about settling scores, but settling on a life's meaning. Not yours, but theirs. Not your speeches, their memory. Not your digs, their depth. The dead cannot speak for themselves. So tread carefully when thinking you can. You do the dead honor, but acting honorably, not selfishly. Don't assume you speak for their views, when you prattle on about yours. Funerals aren't about prattling. They're about soul-searching. All I know is that when you walk into a church or a synagogue, you aren't a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a liberal. You're a human being, there to remember another human being. This is their moment, not yours. Their life, not yours. And their message, not yours. So save the stump speeches for the rabid fans who might care. Not the dead, who clearly do not. I think the one thing worse than speaking ill of the dead, is assuming you're speaking for them at all.”
Well put.
My political analysis of the event is that Carter is definitely one of the worst president’s in US history and arguably THE worst. Since 1981, he has been positioning himself with groups that unequivocally hate the US – the UN, Nobel Peace Prize, selected European countries, and totalitarian regimes throughout the world. Not our allies. And more recently, he has been trying to gather support from the younger generation within the US – since they either were not alive on the 1970s, or too young to remember what a disaster of a leader Carter was. He seems to be trying to have the anti-US world praise him to drown out the traditional US folk who really know him. He is now a poster child for anything anti-American. Should he be proud? Well, I guess his conduct at the late King’s funeral recently is consistent.
One last point: Can you imagine Carter managing the war on terror for the US? Scary thought.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The Terrorist Mindset on CM8
This is an interview with three former terrorists, that have reformed and are active in spreading the word about the evil of the current state of Islam, and trying to create reforms within communities. Facinating.
http://tinyurl.com/dl2dm
http://tinyurl.com/dl2dm
Monday, February 06, 2006
The Bush - Murtha Political Spectrum on Iraq
John Murtha - a PA democrat, has turned from an unknown politician to an American (and international) political celebrity. Murtha is the forerunner of the 'cut and run' approach in Iraq - which basically provides a short time frame to get out and give over the reins to the Iraqis. Bush's approach is that we must stay until it is over - which translates into ensuring the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet and ensuring that the threat to the US and our allies has been decimated. In Bush's fifth state of the union address, Bush again mentioned Iraq, labeled it as one of the front lines in the war on terror, and that there is still a lot of work to do. Murtha responded to Bush's fifth state of the union - regarding the Iraq situation.
His argument is basically broken down as such:
1) The US invaded Iraq to overthrow an evil and threatening regime. This mission has been accomplished.
2) Iraq is not the center of the war on terror and Al Qaida has a small presence, which will disappear, once the US pulls out.
3) The Iraqis do not want us there and will get along better without us.
4) The US military is good at destroying, not building.
5) We must allocate our monetary and military resources towards the real global war on terror and other domestic issues (like Katrina).
Bush's argument for staying indefinitely is more or less the following:
1) Iraq represents one of the front lines of the global war on terror.
2) We cannot leave Iraq without ensuring that the people can sustain the country without the US. Even if the polls show that the Iraqis do not want us there, we cannot respond to that by leaving and placing the population in a terrible reality.
3) We can only leave once the Iraqi government is self-sustainable and the Iraqi security forces are self sustainable. This is far from reality today.
In my opinion, it seems that both Bush and Murtha (and mostly everyone in between) were on the exact same page during the invasion of Iraq. The question was not to invade or not; it was whether the US should only invade with larger allied forces. But every law maker identified Iraq as a threat. (I am putting aside the useless democratic bickering on the level and accuracy of intelligence received, since clearly they had access if requested).
Now that we have overthrown Saddam; destroyed most of the country; acted on false US, UK, Israeli, French, German, Russian, etc. intelligence; and realized that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - what should the US do? In other words, if we knew then (before we invaded) what we know now (no WMDs), Bush and Murtha would not have invaded. So how should the US handle the damage control? That seems to be the disagreement.
I am frankly not sure which way is best, but I do respect Murtha's general opinion, and I do respect Bush's general opinion. What I do not respect are the democrats like Hillary, Kerry and many others that have only criticized Bush and really have no idea how to do it better. At least Murtha criticizes with a plan.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Bush's 5th State of the Union Address
There were a few points in George W. Bush's fifth state of the union address last week that I would like to highlight:
1) The US must continue in Iraq until the Iraqis can take care of themselves:
Did not present a strong agrument and strategy for the most sensitive issue on the table in America today. I was quite disappointed. Until recently, the anti-war movement was smaller and had no better idea of how to run things over there. I think that all that changed when John Murtha (Democrat from PA) not only strongly criticised Bush, but offered alternative strategy. Since then, the political spectrum in the US has bee Murtha on the Left and Bush on the right (I am only including politicians, not opinions) - and a lot in between. The American people need a micro-strategy in Iraq, not a Macro-strategy about policing the world from Tyranny. I will post another article on the Murtha - Bush spectrum.
2) The US government must maintain professionalism and only disagree with other members of the government with respect and constructive dissent:
This, I believe is important and am glad that it was mentioned by Bush. I believe that this is an important differentiating factor of American politics. And the US should cherish it. The disagreements between parties is generally done with respect and with a constructive approach. Lately this has not been the case. Primarily because few politicians really know what a good alternative is in Iraq. Regardless, politics in the US should remain constructive a less mud slinging.
3) The NSA controversial surveillance program is legal and necessary.
This was my favorite part of the speech. It showed the president's integrity and resolve. He showed us his confidence in his policy and I believe he is right. I hope to have a separate post regarding the republican vs. democrat approach to this program.
4) The US must invest in alternative energies and lower oil consumption.
This is pure lip service. Especially coming from a texas republican. It is a good thing that he has placed such long time tables, because it nothing will get done during his administration.
1) The US must continue in Iraq until the Iraqis can take care of themselves:
Did not present a strong agrument and strategy for the most sensitive issue on the table in America today. I was quite disappointed. Until recently, the anti-war movement was smaller and had no better idea of how to run things over there. I think that all that changed when John Murtha (Democrat from PA) not only strongly criticised Bush, but offered alternative strategy. Since then, the political spectrum in the US has bee Murtha on the Left and Bush on the right (I am only including politicians, not opinions) - and a lot in between. The American people need a micro-strategy in Iraq, not a Macro-strategy about policing the world from Tyranny. I will post another article on the Murtha - Bush spectrum.
2) The US government must maintain professionalism and only disagree with other members of the government with respect and constructive dissent:
This, I believe is important and am glad that it was mentioned by Bush. I believe that this is an important differentiating factor of American politics. And the US should cherish it. The disagreements between parties is generally done with respect and with a constructive approach. Lately this has not been the case. Primarily because few politicians really know what a good alternative is in Iraq. Regardless, politics in the US should remain constructive a less mud slinging.
3) The NSA controversial surveillance program is legal and necessary.
This was my favorite part of the speech. It showed the president's integrity and resolve. He showed us his confidence in his policy and I believe he is right. I hope to have a separate post regarding the republican vs. democrat approach to this program.
4) The US must invest in alternative energies and lower oil consumption.
This is pure lip service. Especially coming from a texas republican. It is a good thing that he has placed such long time tables, because it nothing will get done during his administration.
Hamas wins the election in Israel
After Hamas won the election in Israel, the question arises - is that a valid expression of democracy, or is the ability of an anti-democratic party to run in an election the antithesis of democracy itself? I believe that voting is in fact an expression of democracy, and not the definition of democracy. I do not think that the architects of the Palestinian Authority democracy (namely the US, EU and Israel) should of allowed a recognized terrorist and totalitarian organization run in a democratic election. It is counter intuitive and undermines the democracy that the architects are trying to create. I believe that the US and Israel may have allowed it to happen, to prove that the Palestinians are ALL terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
