Thursday, March 13, 2008

Israel's Choice: Die or Confront the Aggressfugees

I got an email today from one of my favorite bloggers. The guy who calls himself Shrinkwrapped, who, as he wrote, almost never does this sent out a blast to a bunch of other bloggers. Here it is:

Subject: Has Israel Lost the Will to Live?

I almost never send out mass mailings but the behavior of the Israeli government, and more importantly, the behavior of the Israeli population begs the question, "Has Israel Lost the Will to Live?" My post is here and includes:


"Is there a threshold beyond which the entire population surrenders to despair?

I am very fearful for Israel. It is still a democracy. Yet where are the people? Why are they not marching through the streets of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv in the hundreds of thousands, demanding their government do something to stop the reign of terror that they have been told repeatedly is their inevitable lot? Why are the Israelis not enraged with their own government's fecklessness?

Israel has the power to destroy their enemies many times over. That is a frightening prospect. Their enemies do not believe that the Israelis, civilized in ways that their enemies are not, would ever take the necessary steps to safe guard their people and stop this war. Yet the Israeli government could win this war with methods far short of total war. It is a question of will.

If the Arabs are correct and Israel has lost the will to live, this war can only end with the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust where they will, as they often boast, finish the job Hitler started. The Palestinians would be only too happy to administer the coup de grace but it will be the Israelis who have committed collective suicide."

I hope this is of interest.
All the Best,
ShrinkWrapped

I felt a physical shock go through me as I read his email. Please, by all means, read his post, it is excellent- but before you do let me share my answer with you:

SW,

I share your concern. When Kate at Small Dead Animals linked to my last post on 03/12 she got me thinking in this direction when she posted it with this quote from Ayn Rand:

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube." - Ayn Rand

This quote makes a direct connection between the work Richard Landes and I are doing on the media and the mental state of Israel and, indeed, much of the west.

My last post spoke to the way in which Israel's public image has become compromised by the media's constant compromise with evil. The mainstream media is, at this point, paralyzed by the, vertebra-popping, ligament snapping contortions it has put itself through to convince itself it is being "fair" when what has actually been needed was not fairness but honesty and accuracy. Fairness, as practiced by the media (as I show in that post) is neither honest nor accurate but a delusional attempt never to offend the most easily offended party even as it cares nothing about offending the most open and least easily offended party.

Is it not possible that the malaise of the Israelis is a product of the same process on a cultural scale? As Neville Chamberlain proved for all time, appeasement and compromise with evil is not prudent, it is wasteful and stupid. But, even worse than that, it is debilitating to the compromiser. It literally compromises his legitimate defense mechanisms and disarms his ability to act.

Israel must stop compromising, if not for her immediate survival but for the hearts and minds of her people. If they continue to be forced to live under the threat of evil and (perversity of perversities) be reviled by much of the world including many leftist within Israel as the evil ones, is that not the ultimate compromise with evil? Let us say, “No more Compromise!” Turn off the power. Close the borders. For God's sake shoot back!

Could Olmert, Livni and their government possibly still have a forlorn hope of convincing the Arabs that Israel has the right to exist? In the entire history of the planet earth, rights without the exercise (not just the possession) of power has never availed anything for anyone. For a Jew, of all the perpetual victims, to think he will be the first case, is lunacy. Buy a history book. Look it up on the Internet. Ask any Arab.

Are they afraid of getting the Caliphateist Arabs (the world's frothiest collection of rage-oholics) angry? Are they afraid of making refugees out of a people that has held that title as a holy sinecure for sixty years? The so called Palestinians are the most murderous, longest suffering, loudest complaining, least productive and most resistant to resettlement refugees ever. It would, perhaps, be more accurate to call them "aggressfugees".

This is one of the few moments in the history of the human race when might coincides with right. Israel and America cannot afford to let the advantage wane for another year. For Sixty years Israel has been fighting an uphill battle and for the same sixty years the west has been pouring vast seas of petrodollars into the enemy's coffers. The tipping point may be at hand any time now; and we know from experience that the more even the fight gets, the more civilian tragedy will occur. It does not have to be a holocaust on either side but might must be asserted and the more one-sided the better.

Permit me to introduce a somewhat frivolous but pointed illustration:




Nice sword you have there Hizbollah (Syria, Hamas, Iran etc...)

Israel is still a democracy but the government of the moment is self-destructive to the point of suicide. If the people do not shake off the deadly effects of compromise and insist on a new civilian leader to replace Olmert and jolt Israel out of her paralysis, the confined and frustrated military might at some point elect to save the country on their own authority- A latter day Saul or David may arise. I pray that this is not necessary. It is not a good prospect but it is preferable to annihilation. It is not too late- YET.

8 comments:

Promethea said...

The Israeli government definitely needs to take more aggressive action and to amp up their PR. As you and others have said, the MSM is doing the work of the murderers and the world is becoming ever more morally confused. It's time to work to end that confusion as well as destroying the murderers.

gxm said...

This is easy for me to say since I am not an Israeli or even Jewish but Israelis need a plan B. I am looking at this in purely military terms. By that I mean Israel needs to formulate a plan for tactical retreat. That’s not surrender and it’s not defeat. Tactical retreats are done to gain a defensible position. I might add they are often done in conjunction with heavy blows to the enemy to keep them off balance and unable to take advantage of the situation. What I would suggest is that Israelis consider this maneuver to the west at some point in the not too distant future - nukes out first, civilians next, followed by military units. I am assuming that U.S. Naval, Air, and some limited ground force support would be available. Most folks here in the USA would support that I think.

Israelis need to think in terms of continuing the fight on a global basis. This isn’t just about Israel but about western civilization. I think Israel has a right to exist and will continue to support them but I am being brutally honest here. Looking eastward from the U.S. the only part of western civilization is on Israel’s left flank, i.e. Europe. Europe is finished. They wouldn’t defend western civilization as a whole let alone a tiny country like Israel even if they agreed that Israel had a right to exist. Politically and militarily Israel has become a bridge too far. If the Democrats should gain the White House and continue to control Congress things could move very quickly. Based on what I have seen and heard the citizens of the U.S. just aren’t going to really respond to the threat until something really bad happens in Europe or Israel or maybe even here again. That event will most likely make 9/11 look like a minor skirmish. Almost 60 million people died in WWII. It would not surprise me to see many more than that eventually die in the current conflict. There is always the unexpected so I may be wrong and let’s hope that I am. However, for some time I have had a bad feeling that the last stand in this long war will be here in the western hemisphere and that victory will not come cheap.

If we focus on technology the western hemisphere is defensible although there may be a few folks in it (you can guess who they might be) who will have to be invited to leave. I would also include Australia and New Zealand. They are not technically in the western hemisphere but are geographically defensible. I by no means think this war is lost just that to win it the U.S. population will have to wake up to the threat and that will probably mean a heavy loss of life. However, with the advances being made in nanotech, robotics, electronics, etc. if we quadruple the DARPA budget we can stay well ahead of those in the east. Without Israel to consider we can target the entire Islamic world with thousands of thermonuclear weapons and eventually much more sophisticated weapons just as we did with the Soviets. The Islamo-fascists have some advanced weapons expertise and they might get some help from certain people in the territories of the old Soviet Union and from certain Europeans but most of them spend their time memorizing the Koran not Feynman’s Lectures on Physics. There is one other thing to consider. If the Russians, Chinese, and Indians find themselves alone with the Islamo-fascist in the eastern hemisphere I’ll bet they will have an astounding change of attitude.

Anyway metaphorically here’s my attitude:

High on the Rocky Mountains boys that’s where I’ll make my stand.
High in Rockies that’s where I’ll take a stand.
Rifle on my shoulder six-shooter in my hand.

Aaron said...

gxm, give your head a shake. You are suggesting evacuation from the god promised land that is a paradise on Earth thanks to the effort of generations of Israeli where to exactly? I highly doubt that evacuation is appropriate in the first place, but did you ever give a thought to the question where do the Jews have to go? And how much will the host countries ask for in exchange for territory?
The only option is to stand and fight, bring heavy artillery to the south border, shell whole villages for every kassam - the palis will bring the heads of hamas thugs on the pickforks after 2-3 shellings.

gxm said...

Aaron,

I understand the Jewish peoples’ desire to maintain a homeland in Israel. And as I indicated this is easy for me to say. But for me ultimate victory is what is important. I would not want to leave the USA but I would go to Australia for example if it meant a chance to ultimately win. There are only 5 or 6 million Israel’s, correct? After what happened in the 1940’s nobody in the USA is going to deny them sanctuary here at least not if folks like me have anything to say about it. It isn’t a perfect solution but in my view it beats an Alamo like finish or another Masada. Live to fight another day. The Apaches were good at that and just a handful of them kept around 5,000 U. S. cavalrymen chasing their tails for a long time.

There is a chance that John McCain will be elected president this year. He won’t back down in Iraq or in confronting Iran. Maybe we will be able to stabilize Iraq and Iran’s internal problems will cause a collapse. Israel would have a very good chance under that scenario. But think of the worst case. The U. S. leaves Iraq and Europe is overrun leaving Israel as the last remnant of western civilization in the entire eastern hemisphere. The Islamic forces can lose 10, 20, or more for every IDF fighter. The enemy is too close. If Israel resorts to nukes it will mean many radiation casualties in that country.

The western hemisphere can be defended more easily and we will have time to massively increase our lead in high tech military hardware. In the world as a whole the USA has a similar problem as Israel does in the Middle East. With only about 5% of the world population we can't hope to field large armies of human soldiers. Donald Rumsfeld, who was a better Secretary of Defense than most folks give him credit for including John McCain, understood this problem. That’s why he was trying to focus on advanced weaponry and moving away from having to maintain military bases all over the planet.

Anyway I am just calling for a worst case scenario contingency plan. As I indicated I hope I am wrong.

Grey Fox said...

'I almost never send out mass mailings but the behavior of the Israeli government, and more importantly, the behavior of the Israeli population begs the question, "Has Israel Lost the Will to Live?"'

Just a note: It would read better as " it raises the question," not "it begs the question."

Begging the question is a logical fallacy wherein the truth of a statement is assumed in order to prove the truth of the statement.

Just thought I'd point that out. :)

Ymarsakar said...

That’s not surrender and it’s not defeat. Tactical retreats are done to gain a defensible position.

They already tactically retreated from Hamas land. They retreat anymore and they're going to have to build underwater domes. You only get so many tactical retreats before it becomes a rout.

I might add they are often done in conjunction with heavy blows to the enemy to keep them off balance and unable to take advantage of the situation.

Heavy blows in this case would constitute upwards of 10,000 casualties, which requires sustained bombing or nukes. None of which Israel seems ready to undertake. What's the point of retreating when Israel hasn't even started fighting for real?

Live to fight another day.

That's what the French thought under Petain. Unfortunately it was American blood that had to be shed so that the French could "live to fight another day" due to the fact that Normandy now needed to be taken from foritified German defenses because the French "lived to fight another day". (Technically, they lived so that they could fight Americans in Africa for Hitler) With a solid border between Hamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and all the other whackos in that part of the globe, Jordan will be squeezed and all kinds of enemy strategic forces will flow into Iraq from the West. Crunched between Iran on the East and all the other idiots on the West, that's your ultimate victory for ya if Israel leaves their land unoccupied. If things end up that way, fine, but it's rather self-defeating to advocate for them to do this ahead of time. The only point of giving up land is so that you can grab more of it in the future. I don't see Israel grabbing more stuff because they gave some up early on.

The Apaches were good at that and just a handful of them kept around 5,000 U. S. cavalrymen chasing their tails for a long time.

That's cause the Apaches couldn't actually win, that's why they were running. Recommending that someone run instead of fight, when they have the power to fight, requires that they give up the ability and chance of fighting in return for being on the run. But being on the run is not a strategy for victory. It's usually what happens when a side is losing.

The enemy is too close.

Which means Israel has them in range. It should also prevent the complacency we see in America in terms of civilian support. Israel just doesn't use that civilian support.

The western hemisphere can be defended more easily and we will have time to massively increase our lead in high tech military hardware.

This isn't a conventional war we are fighting here, where victory is counted in how heavily fortified your coasts are to amphibious invasion. In the war of ideas, belief often matters more than military hardware. And even if we did have a stand off, time is not exactly on the West's side. We can never change their minds without physically being in the middle of them, while they can easily change the minds of elements of the West. CodePink for example.

gxm said...

Ymarsakar,

You make some good points but I keep coming back to two things. First, its isn’t inconceivable that before the majority of folks in the U. S. wake up Israel could find that it literally is the last remnant of western civilization in the eastern hemisphere. Second, if the Islamo-fascists get enough advanced weaponry with the help of certain perfidious groups and individuals in Europe and Asia this could very well become something much closer to a conventional war. I don’t think you are considering just how bad things could get if Europe for example actually becomes Eurabia. That could happen within 5 to 8 years. Then I think there could be the possibility of 10 to 20 times the casualties of WWII maybe more. Not possible? Never forget there is always the unexpected. I am not recommending a tactical retreat tomorrow afternoon only plans to do so if the worst happens. Don’t assume it can’t. You can’t plan such things if you wait until the day before it is necessary. I am also not saying the U. S. is without vulnerabilities. As things deteriorate in Europe we had better start ramping up defense spending and border security not just the U. S. border but the boundaries of the entire western hemisphere. I already hear some folks calling for a rethinking of exactly who we allow to immigrate to the U. S. We might have to extend that to the entire hemisphere. You are of course correct. The likelihood of a WWII style amphibious invasion is minuscule but with the right mix of advanced weapons, a few weapons experts, and some fanatics I can dream up scenarios where we could lose half a dozen cities or more. I guess what I am trying to get across is that there is the possibility that things will spin out of control for a whole host of reasons.

BTW, you are correct that the Apaches were doomed. But that was late in the American Indian wars. There was a time in the early 1800’s when the Europeans could possibly have been stopped at the Appalachians or even driven from the continent. The American Indians were not poor war tacticians. There was a reason that General Sherman was given the name Tecumseh (William actually came later when he was baptized). Also the percentage of American Indians that were expert at handling weapons of all types including firearms was much higher then that of European settlers. What they lacked was the ability to make their own powder, shot, and firearms so they depended alternately on the British and the French. Today the U.S. left likes to portray them as poor defenseless souls living an idyllic life before Europeans arrived. It would not be advisable to try to convince an Apache or Sioux that their ancestors were poor defenseless victims. Unlike the American Indians we have the ability to make many advanced weapons and the R&D to vastly improve them.

You are correct I do tend to look at this in more global conventional warfare terms. I see a weak left flank (Europe) and a combat unit (Israel) in what looks like an overextended and overexposed position. It might become necessary for that combat unit to move back to a defensible position until a counterattack can be mounted. I do try to think outside of the box. For example the enemy could be weakened substantially if the west were able to develop enough energy resources (conventional and alternative) in the western hemisphere so that the vast sums of petrodollars stopped flowing into certain countries. I am therefore not unaware that the conflict can be won in any number of different ways.

For me the bottom line is this. My father fought in WWII and I always got the impression that he and his generation had made a tacit promise that there would be no more Holocausts. I would like to keep that promise but given the political situation in the U. S. I don’t know if it is possible to do that and preserve Israel geographically at least not until the complete resolution of the current world conflict. I was involved in the war the U. S. lost. I have come to consider it a battle lost in the Cold War we won. However, the Vietnam War provided a very important lesson. As you indicate it is very possible to lose a war politically and through lack of will even if militarily you can’t be defeated. It was something I had never considered before that experience.

Jewish Odysseus said...

Are Jews smart, or stupid?

Let's ask the question differently: How many Jews need to be slaughtered before we learn that murderous, heavily armed enemies need to be relentlessly smashed unless and until they give up THEIR WILL to kill us?

The obvious answer, as of today is: "Not sure, BUT SIX MILLION WASN'T ENOUGH." Think of it: SIX MILLION WASN'T ENOUGH!!

The most recognized corporate representative of the Jewish people is the State of Israel. It is currently lead by a government that has lurched from one self-inflicted debacle to another, and a Prime Minister (Ehud the Manchurian Candidate Olmert) who was elected mere months after telling his people: Israelis are "TIRED OF WINNING."

NOT tired of getting rocketed every day and going to funerals for children shot under their beds by Arab terrorists and getting maligned and defamed by the European children of parents who built the death camps...No, "TIRED OF WINNING."

And he won IN A LANDSLIDE.

OK, now go back and read the first sentence of this post. Does it still sound silly?

The Jews really have a problem. Charles Darwin would have spotted it in a second.