TCS Daily


Throwing the Jews Under the Bus

By Arnold Kling - March 24, 2006 12:00 AM

"...with any luck the 2008 Presidential campaign will be the first since September 11 to move beyond the 'stolen election' of 2000 and openly debate what course we should follow in the long war ahead. It's a debate that will touch on everything: military preparedness, our core beliefs, demography and the structure of civilization itself because we have finally come to accept that in the end nothing will be the same in the way that it was." -- The Belmont Club

I wish I could be confident that both parties will nominate candidates with a serious outlook on the war against militant Islam. As I see it, there is still a large segment of the Democratic Party that wants a crusading anti-war candidate, in the mold of George McGovern. That wing of the Democratic Party does not look very attractive to those of us who have voted Democratic in recent Presidential elections but who believe that militant Islam poses an existential threat to the values we hold dear.

For what the anti-war view entails, consider a recent "academic" paper by John J. Mearshimer and Steven M. Walt, of the University of Chicago and Harvard University, respectively.

"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering US support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security."

This is where I believe the leftist view of foreign policy ultimately leads: throw the Jews under the bus to appease the Islamic radicals, because the Jews have "jeopardized U.S. security." To which I say, fine: go ahead and try to throw us under the bus. It won't be the first time the elites decided that anti-Semitism is the fault of the Jews -- that was the conventional wisdom among the elite opinion in the 1930's, also. But I would warn you that this time a lot of us are going to fight before we get thrown under the bus again. (Dave Kopel reminds us that there were fighters in the 1930's.)

I see myself as an American, first and foremost. I value America for its folk beliefs in liberty. Militant Islam is the enemy of everything that I value about America.

True, it is a fact that militant Islam threatens Europe more than it threatens America. And it is a fact that militant Islam threatens Israel more than Europe. But those facts do not imply that the destruction of Israel or the conquest of Europe by militant Islam would serve the U.S. national interest. Those facts do not imply that for America a passive, defensive approach to militant Islam will be less costly in terms of American lives than an aggressive, offensive approach.

I also suspect that if one's goal is to avoid a conflict between Israel and its neighbors, then weakening Israel may not be the best approach. Israel's aggressiveness in dealing with Iran or the Palestinians may turn out to be inversely related to American support for Israeli security. Czechoslovakia complied meekly with the dictates of Munich in 1938. Israel, having seen the consequences of appeasement, will not be so willing to sacrifice the future of its people for "peace in our time."

Questions for Candidates

Here are some questions that I have for Presidential candidates of either party in 2008.

Do you believe that it is possible for America and its values to co-exist with a militant Islam as strong and as popular as it appears to be today?

If your answer is "yes," then:

  • Does that mean that you envision a world in which American values have a sphere of influence and Islamofascism has its sphere of influence, and we achieve a sort of detente?
  • What parts of the world are you prepared to see come under the Islamofascist sphere of influence?
  • Are you prepared to see the Islamofascist sphere armed with nuclear weapons?
  • How would you defend the American homeland if Islamofascists choose to attack?

If your answer is "no," then:

  • Do you believe that Islamic militancy can be reduced through appeasement, or does it have to be opposed militarily?
  • Who do you see as our key allies, and who do you see as our key adversaries?
  • What is your strategy for limiting the military capability, particularly access to weapons of mass destruction, of Islamic militants?
  • How important are American values in this conflict?
  • How would you go about promoting American values abroad?

I take the view that militant Islam does pose an existential threat. I believe that appeasement will fail. I see our key allies as Australia, Great Britain, India, Israel, and people in other countries who share our commitment to liberty. I see our key adversary as Iran, with dangerous concentrations of enemies also in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the unassimilated Muslim population of Europe.

I would ask Congress to declare war on Iran unless it allows weapons inspectors to monitor its nuclear activities and discontinues its policies of supporting terrorism. I would use this declaration of war not to conquer Iran but to destroy its regime, much of its internal gestapo apparatus, and its nuclear weapons capability.

I believe that we will find more allies and obtain higher-quality international support if we stand up for American values than if we apologize for them. I think we need to make clear our strong commitment to preserving our own liberty and our support for anyone who shares such a commitment.

I do not believe that American interests will be advanced by throwing the Jews of Israel, or Jews in America, under a bus.

Arnold Kling is author of Learning Economics.

Categories:

83 Comments

The Best Defense is Offense: Carrying the War to Islam

“True, it is a fact that militant Islam threatens Europe more than it threatens America. And it is a fact that militant Islam threatens Israel more than Europe”

Correction. Neither Europe nor Israel has lost 3,000 people and growing as America did from the WTC hit. Israel cannot be effectively threatened because its major defense is the over 1,000 neutron weapons it has developed along with long range delivery capability. For Islam to try a knockout blow against Israel risks the destruction of every major Islamic city from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And maybe Paris, Brussels, Strasbourg, Moscow, and Peking as well, should their policies be implicated. As Munich brought out, Jews are a bit squeamish about shedding innocent blood. So Israel may well make a preemptive strike against Iran and its embryonic WMD capability as the lesser of two evils, a la Truman and Hiroshima.
America, however, can be effectively threatened because its big guns are totally destructive and nuclear rather than minimally destructive and neutron. An Islamic WMD terrorist attack against America, whether atomic, nuclear, germ, or chemical, could be devastating yet not sufficiently large to justify WMD retaliation. America would have to massively respond with millions of troops and conventional weaponry. Or perhaps America would again choose the Truman response and drop small caliber atomic weapons one at a time on key Islamic “targets” until they got the message.
Europe could care less about Israel. It gives every indication of its enmity and of seeking Israel’s destruction. Its goals are aligned with those of Islam. It’s only the methods with which there is disagreement, in fear of America and the voters. Europe has seemed to agree with the “final solution.” It seems old, sick, tired, and socialized into cowardice. Fear, the desire for evil domination, and despair at its lack because of the existence of Israel and its WMD and economic capability, if only as a scapegoat, have heretofore reigned supreme.
But Europe is starting to crack down in Islamic influences in response to its terror thrusts. So maybe Europe will at long last regain its courage.
As to the elections, the best policy bet for continued American economic, military, and cultural dominance, and world peace and economic prosperity, is Ms. Rice at the moment. Would that the Democrats could put up someone of Clinton’s flawed but very able caliber rather than the hopelessly lost Gore and Kerry. The Democrats used to be courageous in their protection of American interests, as with Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Truman and Hiroshima, and Kennedy and Vietnam. But Truman and Korea, Johnson and Vietnam, Carter and Iran, and Clinton and Waco, the WTC, OKC, and China, were either promotions of globalism, diversions from domestic discontent over court decisions, blundering, or just plain off the reservation of basic American values.

The source of the problem
Let us not forget that giving Palestine to "the jews" in 1947, which did not belong to them (at least for over a millenium) opened the nasty pandora's box we are dealing with now. The Iraq debacle, too, with which we are grappling now was not over oil or WMD in general, or over threat to America, but over Israel. And, while I do not suggest "throwing the jews under the bus", it should be recognized that the state of Israel should not have been there in the first place.

tough love
Sometimes the way to keep your kid from getting run over by a bus is to restrain him/her. In the same way, the best thing America and do for Israel is to restrain it, stop it from building illegal settlements, stop it from driving Palestinians into total poverty.

It's time to stop radical settlers from reading the book of Joshua to their kids, where failure of the Jewish forces to massacre entire Cannanite (Arab) cities brought down the wrath of the L*rd.

Throwing the Jews under the Bus
Whether you are Jewish or not if you want to see how it ends read the Bible, the last book, Revelation. The Chapter 17 has become more clear since 9/11. Many used to think that the Anti-christ (world leader) would come out of Europe;now its thought to be the Middle East (which was part of the Roman Empire, eastern side).

Evil
I would define evil as the desire to limit the liberty of any idividual.
Modern liberals continue to remind us that we live on a small planet and a few extra ppm of CO2 will set of a chain reaction that will flood NYC in 100 years.
But these same modern liberals seem to believe that evil can somehow be contained behind some imaginary border.
If you are not willing to defend the liberty of any fellow human being, then your own personal liberty is not worth defending.
Isreal and all those who stand against evil must be defended by the USA or the USA will (or mabye now becoming?) become evil itself.

kling's piece.
excellent, excellent. both the heart and the mind doing a very good job. The questions to the candidate in particular should be made public. Thank you.

BS
" stop it from driving Palestinians into total poverty. "

They did that to themselves. The corrupt leaders of Palestine and arabia are more concered about destroying Israel than building a society.
Why did the King of Jorden kick them out?

beliefs
Anyone who believes that the only reason the radical Muslims hate us is because of our support of Isreal, is utterly delusional.

2000 elections
I can only hope that the Democrats keep peddling the myth that the 2000 election was stolen.

liberalism
One of the main tenets of modern liberalism seems to be that any problem can be solved, if only other people sacrifice enough.

Want to solve racism. Pass laws that force other people to give up their rights to go to the school of their choice.

Want to solve poverty. Pass laws that take money from other people and give it to the poor.

Want to solve pollution. Pass laws that require other people to give up their property rights.

Want to protect wildlife. Pass laws that take land from other people.

No matter what the problem, the solution is for govt to take from other people.

Not Exactly correct
This story makes a good point America needs to decide how it will exist with Islam - militant Islam in particular, but the study to which it refers does not call for "throwing Jews under the bus." The study points out that the Israeli lobby holds disproportionately large influence in Washington DC, thus the policy choices Congress and the President makes tend to favor Israeli interests over US interests. Anyone who listens to the rhetoric in the Middle East will know that US support for Israel is a major source of tension between Arab countries and the US. Anyone who observes Middle East/American policies should be wondering why, when our interests in the Middle East are mainly OIL, that we spend so much time concerned with an insignificant slice of land that produces no oil, nor much of anything else of value to the US. I think when you examine the power structure in Washington, you will see why.

Thowing Jews in front of the train ...
The author is correct - throwing the jews in front of the train doesn't solve the problem. Contending that existence of Isreal is theoriginal sin just avoids the issue. The real problem is Islam and Islamic society. The milatary options we exercise now do NOT address this fundamental problem. The real problem is that 1 billion of the planets population is hung up in a barbaric religious and social philosophy which has a psychotic inferiority complex. Otherwise, why go ballistic over some inane cartoons? Why get paranoid of members in the community (faith) renouncing the faith for something else? Why get all up in arms about sharing territory with non-islamic but otherwise related people? Too bad a simple quarantine, hospitalization, drug treatments, psychological counseling on a very large scale can't solve this problom. I wish somebody in a leadership position would look closely at this as the problem and come up with some effective long term solutions.

Bipolar World
During the Cold War, we saw a bipolar world, stabilzed (believe it or not) by MAD --- Mutually Assured Destruction. The reason for this was that the Russians, although influenced by Asia culture, still were compatible with Western culture. Except for the nutcases, they didn't want to blow themselves up (or have us blow the up) any more than we wanted the same.

Communism was/is a highly imperialistic philosophy. Remember --- their goal was world revolution. Their hopes for this, however, were somewhat dampened after the Russian revolution when the great revolutions they expected in Germany and France never appeared. And so, while the country made some outbursts, the USSR made its primary word gains with FDR's sellout after WWII. After that, some sort of equilibrium in world affairs was established between the USSR/Warsaw Pact nations and the United States/NATO nations. Each feared the other's nuclear might.

Islam is many times more dangerous than the USSR --- and worse if it should become a nuclear power --- the first international nuclear power whose goals are not esentially economic and political, but religious subjugation. Islam is infinitely more imperialist than the USSR (or any other nation in history) has ever been. Yet the Muslim's scream, "Imperialism!" whenever the US seeks to stem their's.

Still, Islam has misguidedly become the darling of the liberal set. Hillary Clinton was notably pro-Palestinian during the Clinton administration. Why 85% of the Jewish population in New York helped vote her into the Senate is beyond me. Adn then we have the monied "geniuses" like George Soros and the Hollywood crowd who mindlessly support Islam and the Palestinian causes because of the "poor down-trodden" Islamic peoples. Have they ever asked who is responsible for the plight of the Islamic peoples? Can they come to grips with the fact that it is Islam and other Muslims that cause these conditions, not the West? And so they denigrate Christianity and Judaism while raising up Islam. It is just plain senseless.

Can we have a bipolar world with Islam just as we had with the USSR? NEVER!! Islam, as mentioned above, is infinitely more imperialistic than the USSR ever was. And they are not afraid, even eager, to die for their cause --- taking eveybody else with them. If it takes nuclear war to "cleanse" the world for the eventual domination of Islam, then they will launch one.

Please do not talk about moderate Muslims. Yes, there is a small, vocal population of them and even a silent moderate population. Both are BAD Muslims. The latter population is worse in terms of teh West because they will not stand up for what they truly believe in fear of what can happen to them. The problem with Islam is not Islamic fundamentalists, it is Islamic fundamentals. And because of this, a bipolar world can never exist between Islam and the West.

And where will Islam strike first? Some would like to think at the US. First, however, they will nuke Israel knowing that this is a focal point of their mass hatred and because the Islamic popultion is so widely spread that any retaliatory strike by the United States, something any administration would be loathe to do using the nuclear option, would be virtually impossible without massive collateral damage to "innocents." (Note the quotation marks.) Done properly, the source of any such attack would be obscured.

We MUST support Israel and do everything we can to eliminate a nuclear threat from Islam --- that's ISLAM, not Islamic nations. Israel is an island of democracy, sanity and stability in a region of the world that has been nothing but chaos for more centuries than anyone can remember. And the nature of these chaotic peoples has not changed in that time. Only their focus, the destruction of Israel has changed. If that comes about, can you imagine what a morale booster that will be for Islam? They needn't put up recruiting posters for nutcase homicide bombers. They will be coming out the woodworks to attack the West and the US in particular.

Israel is, in fact, a key to world stability --- not only because it presents a shining example of what the Middle East could be, but because its geopolitical presence exerts the most positive influence in that region of the world than has ever been seen before. Israel is the keystone to whatever stability there is in the Middle East. Take that away, and the whole structure of world stability will be threatened by international Islam more than the USSR ever could.

We must back Israel to the hilt and take whatever actions necessary, no matter mow distasteful or protested by other nations (or George Soros and his idiot ilk) to eliminate the Islamic nuclear threat.

Talking Points
Again, Liberal--- is without realistic information. Not only has Islam been the major reason for Palestinian poverty,the Palestinians have rejected options given them by Israel in the past that would have made their lot infinitely better. Yassir Arafat was a fool who lived on chaos and strife. Before his ascendency, Israeli/Palestinian relations were better than they are now --- even though tension has always existed between the peoples.

Palestinians and other Arabs who live within Israeli society are infinitely more prosperous than those who wish to live outside it. Israel gives them democratic freedoms. It gives them economic freedoms and the opportunity to better themselves. Those who realize that don't want to go live in Palestine. They know where they are better off.

So, get off the liberal talking points. As usual, they are pure BS.

Hold on there, the US policy is causing problems in the Middle East and Israel is in the middle of i
Face it the US foreign policy is causing problems and Israel is in the middle of it. For example, I am sure that the impoverishied Palestinians get quite angry when the US sends Israel over 1 billion, $400 per person, in economic aid EACH YEAR.

Infact the money is the issue. The US gives tons of military and economic aid to Israel each year for nothing. That money hurts US relationships with the other peoples in that area. I think it is time to look at our relationship with Israel and stop throwing money in the pit.

Maybe if the US stops the cash the folks in Israel will have to incorporate the Palestinians into their economy??????

And going to war in Iran? Is the author a moron? Then we will have to occupy two countries populated with religious nuts that is the size of Mexico.

Bye the way, if this attitude is Liberal then the conservative movement is truely dead.

Israel
If you believe that defending a tolerant democracy against intolerant terrorists, is something the US should not be doing, then you and I have no points of comonality on which to form any discussion.

If you believe that if we abandoned Isreal, that the Arab states will start liking us, you are likewise delusional.
The Arab states need someone to deflect the anger of their repressed people. When Isreal is gone, they will need someone else to hate.

The radicals amongst them truely believe that they are entitled, and destined to rule the world. They will stop at nothing to acheive what they view as their destiny.

Sorry, math mistake, The 1 billion is $4 per person.

face it
Your an idiot.

Isreal is nothing more than the distraction du jour that the Arab despots use to distract their populations from the fact that the despots are keeping them poor.

Arab poverty is, and has always been caused by the Arabs themselves.

Your attempt to distract attention from the real problem says loads about you and your real motivations.

Excuse Me
But what about the TON of money that is being sent to the Palestinians by the US, ISRAEL and others? Hmmm!?!? Can you say SWISS BANK ACOOUNT??? Arafat wasn't exactly a "poor starving Palestinian." US foreign policy isn't the problem. The Palestinians and Islam are their own problem.

You've Got It
Amen!

Support for Israel or Likud?
Fighting poverty is voters' top priority
The Jerusalem Post, March 24, 2006

A recent poll revealed that 33% of the voters believed that fighting poverty constituted the most urgent issue with which the 17th Knesset must deal after the March 28 elections. Second on the list of importance, according to the Dahaf Institute poll released on Friday on Channel 2, was the fight against Hamas.

The other issues on the Israeli agenda included improving education (supported by 18% of the population), evacuation of settlements (9%), and fighting corruption (8%)

An additional poll revealed that Kadima had continued to drop in the poll to an expected 36 mandates. Labor gained some mandates, according to the same poll, reaching a predicted 21 Knesset seats following the elections. LIKUD WAS EXPECTED TO RECEIVE ONLY 14 SEATS...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395669974&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Modern Liberalism is a suicide pact.

What about Israel?
Given that statement, should Kadima win the election and form a government with Labor, would you still support Israel?

making my point
Dear kgkphd,

Thanks for making my point for me better than I did. Israel has allowed the Arabs living within the `67 borders a reasonable life and those Arabs have not become terrorists. Israel has made the occupied territories a living hell, and is surprised to see terrorists from hell being born.

Now before you reply that it was evil Palestinians and manipulative neighboring countries that made the occupied territories so bad, think that Israel has been in more or less complete control of the area since 1967. Current economic conditions in the territories are a result of Israeli policies: restricting movements, stealing land, distroying infrastructure, etc.

You may have heard other people express these opinions. That in itself does not make them wrong or make me unreasonable. I do not receive talking point faxes or emails.

Israeli policy being short sighted does not imply that Arafat was a good person and I did not say that he was.

You're Warped
Israel hs NOT made the occupied territories a living hell. The people in those territories enjoy yhe same opportunities as the Arabs in the pre-'67 boundaries. The Palestinians have created their own hell. There attitude has been "everything or nothing." The dent the right of Israel to exist and, given the opportunity, would kill every Jew there. Don't give me this bullshit about Israel being the creator of thier hell.

Ehud Barak, in negotiations with Arafat gave him 99% of what the Palestinians were asking for --- everythng but a divided Jerusalem. In business, if I negotiated and got 99% of what I asked for I'd be praising God for my good fortune --- but not Arafat and the Palestinians.

They teach thier CHILDREN to kill for God's sake. They send their kids through checkpoints with bombs --- the kids don't even know their carrying them --- and they blow the kids and others to pieces in the name of an imaginary state and an imaginary god. (Allah, by the way was an ancient Arabic moon god.) These are sick, sick people and they haven't been driven to it by the Israelis. They've been driven to it by their own leadership, by their own stupidity, and by Islam. Rather than coexist, they want it all and more.

Retrict movements? Sure --- how else to you control access to your people and territory in the face of homicide bombers. Stealing land? From whom? the Palestinians? The Palestinians were and are nothing in terms of a state. And the Israelis are certainly not going to destroy infrastructure that they need.

Like all liberals, you're lacking a brain. You don't need talking pont faxes or e-mails. Your own perverted fantasies, built on ignorance of both the present and of history are obviously enough to fuel your antisemitism.

Adults
Adults protect children and the feable minded from harming themselves.

Can you answer a direct question?
That does not answer my question. Should Kadima win the election and form a government with Labor, would you still support Israel -- Yes or No?

Forgot
Adults protect children, the feable minded and progressives from harming themselves.

Will you support Israel if Kadima wins?
Please explain what you mean by -- are you implying that Israelis are childish?

Bipolar World
Re: Bipolar World by kgkphd 3/24/06 TCS

“. . USSR made its primary wor[l]d gains with FDR's sellout after WWII. “

There’s a lot of evidence that supports this view. However, Hitler was determined to keep the war going until he had killed as many Jews as possible, even if it cost the life of every last German. Hitler, or course, was a psychopath, just like Lenin, Stalin, Tojo, and Mao, to whom other people’s lives were always expendable.

Hitler was a firm believer in the Lucifer of the Bible. He thought that to continue Lucifer’s reign as long as possible, it was necessary to prevent the Jews from reestablishing themselves in Palestine. And the best way to do that was to kill every Jew he could get his hands on and to prevent those he couldn’t from fleeing to Palestine. We know that because the ovens were going right up until Hitler’s suicide and his use of 12 year olds in combat. I met one a few years ago. They were uncommonly brave, resourceful, and effective.

Whether Hitler was nuts to believe this is not the issue. He acted every bit as if it were true. And so do the radical Islamic leaders, who want both Israel and every last Jew obliterated. Since the largest concentration of Jews is in America, which is also the major home of their ancient enemy, Christianity, Islam wants Americans dead too. The WTC and NYC represent everything radical Islam hates: Jews, Christians, freedom, and America’s economic, military, and cultural dominance that show showcase Islam’s inferiority.

Roosevelt well knew the propensity of Germany and Japan to fight to the end. With 75% of the country opposed to entry into WWII, and Germany’s Heisenberg in charge of Hitler’s atomic bomb program, he had to bait Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor to get us behind entry into WWII. Had Hitler gotten the bomb first, he would have used it on America to get us to surrender, just as we did to Japan. Like Eisenhower and, as it turned out, Truman with the bomb, he believed in saving as many American lives as possible. While the communist influence in his administration is well known and documented, FDR’s main point in letting Stalin take Berlin was to save perhaps tens of thousands of American lives, for which I, as an American alive at the time, am grateful. Would that Truman had the same attitude in the Korean war where I and my buddies served as ducks in a shooting gallery to try to establish a UN army while at the same time building up Mao’s communist state.

FDR made a trade: European territory and the saving of American lives in return for Russian lives taking Berlin. Never forget, the Russians paid for their gains in blood. Other people’s land for American lives was a good deal, not a sellout.

“Why 85% of the Jewish population in New York helped vote her into the Senate is beyond me.”

Yes, it is indeed notable that the Democratic Party’s major supporters are at the extremes of the IQ range, whose major groups average 85 and 90 and then 115 and 145+. See page 175 of The Bell Curve. These include 85% of university professors, whose IQs mostly start at 145; 85% of Jews, averaging 115; 65% of Mexicans, averaging 90; and 90% of blacks, averaging 85.

What this seems to prove is that IQ is no measure of common sense or the ability to arrive at either truth or a sound conclusion. These groups either very quickly or very slowly arrive at the same wrong conclusions.

There was a time, say with FDR or Kennedy, when Democrats could arrive at sound, though sometimes disputable, conclusions. It would be better for the country if the Democrats regained that ability to discern truth and arrive at sound conclusions. They are good at telling us where the Republicans are wrong, for which we owe them our thanks. However, today’s Democrats have no new ideas, preferring to rely on the old and failed Jimmy Carter type downer, class warfare, and generally socialist ideas. They sound more like the fearful, government-dependent French rather than the can-do American of Horatio Alger legend, and therefore unfit to govern.

“any retaliatory strike by the United States, something any administration would be loathe to do using the nuclear option, would be virtually impossible without massive collateral damage to "innocents." (Note the quotation marks.) Done properly, the source of any such attack would be obscured.”
See my response to this proposition at the top of the discussion entries: The Best Defense is Offense: Carrying the War to Islam.

refrain
You wrote:

> "Like all liberals, you're lacking a brain. You don't
> need talking pont faxes or e-mails. Your own perverted
> fantasies, built on ignorance of both the present and
> of history are obviously enough to fuel your
> antisemitism.

You might enjoy writing this but it doesn't further the discussion. I refrain from ending each post with my opinion of the post I'm answering. If your post makes sense, that sense speaks for itself, or not.

No Subject
Your comments are interesting. Let me answer some of them.

First, Hitler was an occultist. He believed in the mythology of German ancestry and heritage, and picked and chose those legends from the Bible and related sources to create his own insane philosophy. He did not believe in God and discouraged other from believing in God establishing Nazism as the state “religion” and himself as its god. A belief in Lucifer, without a belief in God would b difficult to conjure. Moreover, a belief that the world would end when the Jews returned to Israel would seem to be the farthest priority in his mind.

In fact, his original plans did not call for the destruction of the Jews.

He might actually have let the Jews go to “Palestine” were it not for the fact that the land had been a British Protectorate since the end of WWI and limited the number of Jews entering the area. The German foreign Office actively sought to keep open the few remaining routes of Jewish emigration after the start of the war in 1939. In September of 1939, the British were ready to accept about 1,500 released from Germany. The trick was that they ha to pick up their visas in Italy (Great Britain was at war with Germany but not yet with Italy.) Then the war spread and the Italian route was closed.

Later, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem aligned himself with Hitler and Hitler could not afford to upset his Arab allies by shipping Jews to “Palestine.”

Hitler’s original plan was simple. Once France was conquered, there would be a quick finish to the war --- his Panzers rolling over Russia in a tidal wave of destruction. France had colonies --- one of which was Madagascar. With France came Madagascar. When hostilities ceased, it was Hitler’s plan to ship all European Jews to Madagascar, thus ridding the continent of “the plague.”

Obviously, war fortunes did not swing that way, although he kept this fantasy in his mind for a long time.

His next move was a relocation move --- to drive the Jews as far east as humanly possible --- Siberia. He made a number of resettlement moves, taking Jews (and Poles) from Poland, pushing the east and resettling their lands with displaced Germans --- which didn’t work out to well even for the Germans.)

It wasn’t until I was clear that the Germans might actually lose the war that elements of the Final Solution were put in place. Up until then, the killing of Jews was, while not specifically and officially ordered, was not discouraged and was considered to be something that would make the Fúhrer happy. There were no explicit orders to exterminate the Jews emanating from Berlin.

The Final Solution was the product of Heydrich and Eichmann, promulgated at the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1943. The goal of the Final Solution, as set at the Wannsee Conference, was to eliminate all Jews between Ireland and the eastern end of Siberia, and between the Arctic Circle and the north coats of Africa. In fact, it was a last ditch, final effort following the failure of the other methods to produce results and in light of the fact that time might be limited due to losses on the military front.

As for FDR --- he didn’t give a rat’s ass about the Jews. He was an Eastern WASP elitist who had grandiose plans for himself. Saving Jews did not figure into it. His administration was failing --- having had a major recession in the late 1930s, which built on the Depression and his inability to pass his domestic legislation programs. The war in Europe saved his political butt. And Jews were not a priority --- anti-Semitism in the US was more than significant at the time --- even among “polite” society.

When Hitler’s plans were clear in the early-mid-1930s, vis-à-vis German Jewry, there were “NGOs” operating in the United States to bring Jewish intellectuals, some of the Nobel Prize winners, to the United States. These were all privately funded. The only contact they had with the government was the necessary interaction with the State Department. Every cent available for these programs was private money. The FDR administration did nothing to help. As a result, barely 300 people, out of several thousand, were able to be brought to the US.

While the name of the ship escapes me, Hitler had released a shipload of Jews from Hamburg in the late 1930s. No one would accept them --- including the USA (to our everlasting shame) on FDR’s orders. Now, it can be argued that by accepting the people on the ship, it would have opened up a flood-gate of Jewish immigration from Europe. This would have been unlikely, however, if for no other reason than the transport problems.

Remember I mentioned Madagascar? One of the biggest issues there were the logistics involved in shipping Europe’s Jews to that island. It would have been no different across the Atlantic.

But, FDR (always held up by the ***** as a Jewish pawn) gave Hitler one of his best propaganda coups --- See, no one wants the Jews, not even America.

That FDR gave away Eastern Europe is true --- and it had nothing to do with lives. American units at the time were moving farther and faster tan the Russian with fewer casualties --- not to mention the fact that they were not taking the revenge the Russians thought was there due.

In the 1930s, FDR was advised (several times) by the FBI that there were Russian spies in the State Department, the War Department, and elsewhere in the government. He did nothing about it. Ever.

Churchill warned FDR about Stalin numerous times. FDR cozied with Stalin ignoring, and all but side-lining Churchill.

FDR didn’t save a single life. He carved up Europe for his own purposes and killed many more in Eastern Europe, not to mention those who were enslaved for so many years, than ever were “saved” by his decisions (read: sell outs).

Roosevelt may have known that the Germans would put up a big fight to the end, but he also knew that they didn’t have the resources with which to do it. In the end, they were using wooden bullets, had no Luftwaffe left, no tanks, no food, fuel, ammunition.

The Japanese were more dangerous. The use of the atomic bomb on Japan was a foregone conclusion. Saipan and Iwo Jima were the classrooms that taught us this.

I believe that your points on the Democrats are well taken. Liberalism has gone off the deep end. Ho Chi Minh once said that it is easier to govern a war than it is to govern a peace. The Liberals/Democrats seem to want to create/continue/exacerbate a political war because they have no clue as to what to do with a peace. LBJ screwed up. Carter screwed up. Clinton screwed up. (In fact Jimmy Cater used to be the worst president this nation ever had … then came Clinton.)

Most people have forgotten that, between 1975 and 1958, not civil rights legislation passed Congress --- and that it was the Democrats who stopped it. What changed that? LBJ’s desire for the presidency. His later implementation of the Civil Right Act of 1964 made him a hero --- an undeserving one --- and it created a permanent state of racial and ethnic strife in this country --- something the Democrats feed on.

But this is far an away from the subject of Israel.

I suggest you read a scholarly work:

The Origins of the Final Solution
Christopher R Browning © 2004
University of Nebraska Press
(Funded by the Vad Yashem Foundation)

Asked and answered

Don't blame "the Jews"
Don't blame "the Jews" for existing. It makes about as much sense as blaming "the Palestinians" for existing.

Palestine is the Roman term for the land of the "the Jews".

Jesus was a resident of Palestine.

Those called "Palestinians" today are people too, not pawns. Most of their problems have been caused by their friends not "the Jews". "Palestinians" living in Israel have had more rights than those living in the surrounding countries.

Bipolar World
Bipolar World, kgkphd Answer to comments by rrostan thereon: rrostan response:

We seem to be in near total agreement on the facts and their immediate meanings and thank you for the many enlightening insights and facts. We differ on the long range implications and interpretations. The main impetus for contention on this issue is your statement:

“A belief in Lucifer, without a belief in God would b difficult to conjure. Moreover, a belief that the world would end when the Jews returned to Israel would seem to be the farthest priority in his mind. “

The first proposition is true in one sense; and yet false in another. Hitler did not believe in God, true, yet he did believe in His existence. A great deal of evidence supports the view that Hitler did believe in Lucifer because he chose to follow Lucifer’s dictates rather than God’s in some very major ways. Belief in Lucifer implies belief in the existence of God, at least in the West.

As to the second, re the return of Jews to Israel, the argument turns on what you make of facts and their timelines.

Hitler in the 1920s showed hatred of Jews and his intention to kill or expel them from Germany and Europe. When the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem aligned himself with Germany, Hitler had to have become even more fully aware that the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine pursuant to the 11/4/1917 Balfour Declaration to Rothschild was becoming more immanent and inevitable.

In 1941, Hitler ordered Eichman and Heydrich to plan the final solution. This implies the final solution was in Hitler’s mind well before 1941, awaiting opportune an time for implementation.
By April,1941, Hitler had lost the Battle of Britain, and turned from his unsuccessful air attacks on Britain to invasion of Russia in June, 1941.

After America’s entry into WWII after December 7, 1941 and its winning of the crucial Battle of Midway in 1942, Hitler could see it was the beginning of the end of Japan. But Tojo, a psychopath like Hitler, would not give in when by prolonging the war he could continue in power and kill millions under the pretense of getting better surrender deals. Wasn’t that why he bombed Pearl Harbor despite Admiral Yamamoto’s very informed warning not to awaken America, the sleeping giant. It took the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki one week apart to convince the Japanese government to surrender over the objections of Tojo, who like Hitler was prepared to sacrifice every last man, woman, and child if necessary. And thank God it did, because it would be a year before we had more bombs, during which millions of Japanese and Americans would have died needlessly.

Never underestimate the love of psychopaths for both power and killing. There are too many high and low examples in history. We are told one in 25 males is a sociopath or psychopath, and one in a hundred females. Shades of Treblinka.

After the successful Soviet counterattack at Stalingrad in November, 1942 and the loss of North Africa by 1943, Hitler had to know he would lose the war. This awareness did not lead to surrender plans. Instead, it led to the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1943, whereat implementation of the final solution was agreed upon by 15 of Hitler’s bureaucrats. Hitler’s plan, like Tojo’s, was continued mass killings.

Adding impetus to the final solution was the surrender of the German army at Stalingrad in February, 1943, with 93,000 troops. The Axis forces lost over 800,000 dead, the Soviets over a million. Can you just see Hitler’s rage firing his determination to take revenge on the Jews who he blamed for everything bad that had ever happened to him (and Germany, he would hastily add). Approaching death powerfully focuses the mind on unfinished business.
So both Hitler and Tojo were psychopaths determined to kill as many as possible. But in Hitler’s case, why not his military enemies when that would prolong the war even more? Why were so many sacrifices and diversions of support made so that the death camps could continue operating at top speed as long as possible. Why was killing unarmed Jews more important than killing enemy soldiers.

Belief in the existence of both God and Lucifer is not inconsistent with choosing to follow Lucifer, just very foolish. The legend of Faust, or Dr. Faustus, who apparently tried predicting the future by communication with the dead (necromancy), is relevant here. We find at http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/FAUST.HTML:

The above mentioned medieval legends involving Faustian types reveal surprising continuity. Most of those depicted as having entered a pact with the devil are saved rather than damned. In almost all cases the pact with the devil is related not only or even primarily to gratification of physical desires. Instead, men--and they are males--of genius seek access to "secret" knowledge through the devil, and generally that knowledge falls into the category we now would consider scientific. Hence, there is clearly a long-standing association between "science" and the demonic, an association that focuses on the tremendous dangers inherent in understanding and controlling nature and is blind to the potential for good in the scientific enterprise.
These legends show that people's view of the devil (and science) during the Middle Ages was profoundly ambivalent and very complex. Theoretically, invoking the Lord in the process of calling up Satan was considered a sin. On the other hand, it was common knowledge that demons could be called forth in the name of God. If the ritual was performed properly, they would have to do the conjurer's bidding. After all, Light was more powerful than Darkness, and to bind the devil or his servants in Jesus' name could even be interpreted as an act of faith. Hence, there seemed no reason not to make use of Satan's special powers for a few months or even years, as long as one made sure not to die without having repented first. It was a gamble, but one with reasonably good odds. After all, God's grace was considered unlimited, and there were insurance policies ranging from intercessionary prayers to special masses and indulgences.
Not all pre-Reformation Faust figures, however, escape hell. The Polish Physician Twardowski made a pact with the devil in order to learn necromancy and enjoy the "good life." In the popular legend, Satan takes Twardowski's soul, paradoxically while he is on an errand of mercy and because he keeps his word as nobleman and refuses to save himself by sacrificing the innocent child of a Jewish innkeeper (Wiemken xxviii). Next to Spain, Cracow was one of the main academic centers for the study of the magical arts during medieval times and into the sixteenth century.
Late medieval traditions evolved the human archetype whose dissatisfaction with the limitations of earthly existence leads to a pact with the devil in order to use demonic powers for advancing the spectrum of earthly existence from erotic passion and physical comfort to philosophic wisdom and scientific knowledge.
The whole idea of a pact with the devil depended on the Christian understanding of life after death and specifically a devil as God's adversary and Lord of hell who emerged from of a combination of the Jewish Lucifer with northern personifications of darkness and evil (Wiemken xxx-xxxi). By the time of Luther, the devil was sufficiently "real" that he could be attacked with an inkwell
Thus from the very beginning there was a belief in both God and Lucifer and in the power of Lucifer and his demons to aid men of genius. While Adam and Eve chose

Oldeurope's a goner
Modern Oldeuropean antisemitism is a sympton of their collective loss of a grip on realtiy. The U.S. has protected them from evil for generations, asking nothing in return, certainly not gratitude. They are like spoiled children who despise their parents while demanding more and more from them. We are not going to protect them from the Arabs. Oldeurope's quite annoyed with the Jews because they're not going quietly this time. They can't seem to see that when the Jews are gone, they will be next. Israel and the U.S. will be around after Oldeurope is sacked and the Islamists are pushed back into the stone age.

the questions
"Here are some questions that I have for Presidential candidates of either party in 2008..."


These are great questions and they help define the issues in articles like this. Unfortunately there is no way of honest answers or even any answers from political candidates.

Liberalism and anti-semitism
Increasingly, the Left both here in the States and in Europe embrace anti-Israeli positions. These positions are simply a smoke screek for what it really is about: good, old-fashioned Jew-Baiting. But since the Left doesn't want to be identified as modern *****, they cloak their hatred for Jews as concern for the poor Palestinian people who,if given the opportunity, would murder every Jew they could get their hands on.

Ok, so foreign aid is a bad idea.
Well if you want to stop ALL foreign aid then I am in agreement with you. Just because it is a terrible investment in Palestine does not mean that it is a good investment in Israel.

What did Jefferson say?
"Peace, friendship, commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

So lets obey his advice for a change instead of continually involving ourselves in saving the world from itself.

Don't blame the Jews
If read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I do not blame "the Jews". I blame the Zionists, who are a subset of "the Jews" and the imperialistic powers who had their own agendas when helping recreate a state 2000 years after its demise. I have no problem with Jews existing, but with their state being implanted on an already occupied land, without the consent (actually despite the protests) of the inhabitants. Whoever did that (see above) is the one to blame. Whoever is suffering from that willingly (the Jews) or unwillingly (the Palestinian arabs) are the victims.

You may want to claim that the initial act of injustice was the scattering of the Jews from Palestine, but the perpetrators and the states involved in that do not exist any more. The states that re-created Israel are top world players now and are available to take the blame.

Red, Blue or Purple Israel?
Israelis themselves are not strident conservatives. As I have pointed out, the moderate Kadima party is expected to win the most seats, followed by the liberal Labor party.

US Support
If the USA and the west told Isreal they were on their own, no matter which party won, would a 'progressive' party win?

U.S. support should be conditional?
Of course that would never happen, but is that what you think the U.S. should do?

FYI: Sharon founded the moderate Kadima party, which includes other ex-Likud members -- it's not a progressive/liberal party.

http://kadimasharon.co.il/11-en/index.aspx

How safe do you feel?
If you are truly on you own in the world, how progressive would you be?
How liberal would Canada be if they knew the USA would not defend them?

As safe as Christians?
The U.S. will ALWAYS support Israel no matter the coalition in power, so the point is moot. Furthermore, the actions of a state or individual in such a situation would vary. For example, Jesus Christ offers two common approaches:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

In an event, where did you ever get the idea that Kadima is progressive?

US Blind spot
The Zionist both Jew and Christian continue to play the game. While the US follows a religiously based policy on this matter then no progress will be made. In fact the exact opposite what used to be a secular issue in the middle east is turning into a religious one for the Arabs.

gee now there something
"The radicals amongst them truely believe that they are entitled, and destined to rule the world. They will stop at nothing to acheive what they view as their destiny."

Many people would stick that label on the US to!

Kadima
Kadima is a Progressive Reconstructionist Community integrating celebration, study, and work for social justice.

http://www.kadima.org/

Sloppy research.

How about me?
I'm zionist and Roman Catholic. So?

Sloppy Research Indeed
Do you know the difference between a political party and a commune?

Kadima
http://kadimasharon.co.il/11-en/HomePage.aspx

Kadima list for 17th Knesset
http://kadimasharon.co.il/55-en/Kadima.aspx

Kadima’s Socio-Economic Action Plan
http://kadimasharon.co.il/171-en/Kadima.aspx

TCS Daily Archives