Articles

Thursday, January 24, 2008

It's All Our Land

After the battle of Gettysburg, Union General Meade could have crushed the army of General Robert E. Lee. Instead, after the battle he sent President Lincoln a message saying, "We got them off our land."

Lincoln responded, "It's all our land."

Rather than thinking like Lincoln, Israel today insists on the defeatist thinking of a General Meade. We retreat behind what we delusionally believe to be 'secure borders' and congratulate ourselves for 'getting them off our land' by retreating from our land. But it is all our land and we may no longer believe it but they do. They believe it is their land and they will take it from us.

Lincoln understood that there was no alternative to winning the war. Either the Union was preserved or America would be destroyed. While many Democrats and military men pressed for compromises, he had the vision to press on. At one time Israel's leaders understood what Lincoln did, that retreat was death. Today Israel's leaders continue to believe they can retreat with honor. That there is a compromise that will avoid confrontation.

But there is no such compromise. We either recognize that it's all our land or lose to those who do.

The uncompromising position is the most difficult one to take and even more difficult to maintain in the face of setbacks. It is so difficult because not only does it demand extraordinary resources and risks, but there is no certainty of success. Compromise always seems more appealing because it appears to be less of a gamble. Compromise says, "I win some, you win some. I lose some, you lose some." It's not just the seemingly higher moral ground, but it's the safer bet. The problem is that when war is a zero sum game, compromise is simply self-destruction. You cannot compromise with those whose endgame is your destruction. You can only fight them or slowly cut your own throat.

The Civil War dragged on endlessly under weak generals whose battle plans focused on defeating armies that refused to fight on their terms. After all this time Western military forces have gained some strategic ground in understanding how to fight guerrilla forces and insurgencies but the political leadership continues to lack the will to fight such wars. The average politician is still in love with phrases such as "The Middle Way", "A Political Solution" or "Peace with Honor."

Peace is a virtue when offered to those who are willing to live in peace. Peace however is a crime when offered to those who are unwilling to live in peace. Political solutions in a zero sum game only help the enemy and draw more blood and deliver more pain. That is exactly what Israel has done in the face of the terrorist threat and in the process has turned the Intifada that began as a political problem into a grave threat to Israel's existence.

For a decade and a half Israel's leaders have been giving away the country while promising security. Yet their security promises consist of repetitions of, "We got them off our land." But of course we didn't. We just got them off the part of our land that we haven't given away yet.

Our enemies understand that their struggle with us is a zero sum game, one in which they will either gain everything or lose everything. They do not need to win on the battlefield because they know that their occasional killing sprees are only a means to continue forcing Israel to seek a political solution. While the Arabs are overmatched by Israel on the battlefield, Israel is overmatched by the Arabs when it comes to politics as long as they hold the twin trump cards of oil and terrorism.

After a decade and a half of compromises, surrenders and political solutions, proclaiming "It's All Our Land" has become one of the most difficult things to say in Israeli politics. Peres repeatedly taunts the right by demanding that they present an alternative to negotiations. Each time the right has failed to do so, it has failed to simply say, "It's All Our Land." This was once the theme of Betar and the Likud. If Israel is to perish, "Let's Make a Deal" will be the theme of the victorious party. If Israel is to survive, "It's All Our Land" will be the theme of the victorious party.

13 comments:

LemonLimeMoon said...

The only difference is that Lincoln's "our" included the south.
There is no Union without both north and south.
In the case of so called Palestinian canaanites,they have and never had any right to Israel.
Egypt doesnt want them, Jordan doesnt want them.. they realize they are a terrorist encampment and not a people.

Keli Ata said...

Israel needs to wake up to the fact that the Palestinians have no interest in compromise or a two-state system. They are fighting for all the land, and Israel is giving it to them inch by inch.

steve klein said...

I suppose a lot can be written about Lincoln. I am no scholar on the man. He's got to be amongst the most studied presidents.

One thing that became apparent to me when I began studying Lincoln, he appeared more of a pragmatist than a true believer or an ideologue. Lincoln believed in compromise.

Back then, abolitionist Republicans were called "radicals." Today, an abolitionist would be a moderate or mainstream conservative Republican.

Lincoln could not bring himself to side wholly with the abolitionists, instead he took a more middle of the road position on slavery.

The officer corps of the Army of Potomac felt no loyalty to a Republican president. They believed civilian property -- including slaves -- should not be touched by the army. General McClellan was a case in point. McClellan opposed the Emancipation Proclamation and thus had a halfhearted commitment to crushing the Confederacy. How can you win a war when your general sympathizes with the enemy?

Compare a man of Lincoln's refinement and generosity to a man of base character like President Andrew Jackson. Jackson wanted to expel the five civilized Indian tribes west of the Mississippi. Jackson replaced Indian agents with reliable loyalists whose commitment to removal was above question. Unlike Lincoln, Jackson surrounded himself with partisan loyalists. Jackson, if he were an abolitionist -- which he was not -- would have had no problem cleaning house in the officer corp of the Army of the Potomac. Is there any wonder the Civil war dragged on and on.

An Uncompromising position is not difficult one to take, nor difficult to maintain in the face of setbacks, if you are a true believer like Andrew Jackson -- who believed in the righteousness and the justice of his cause and that divine providence, even God was on his side.

Thus Jackson cleansed the land of Native Americans. Jackson and most Americans -- who were racist -- had no problem holding that the entirety of the land American settlers occupied, belonged to these White European usurpers by divine right; according to Manifest Destiny.

If the Jews do not believe we have even more of a God-given right to the Holy Land, are we not the most wretched of people?

DK said...

Great beginning part of your post! Of course, the comparison of Gaza and the Gazans to the south is a bad one and doesn't work, because you really don't want the Gazans to be part of Israel, but could try none the less!

Anonymous said...

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE, THEY ARE PRE-RATIONAL SAVAGES - NO WONDER THEY GROW UP TO BE BLOOD-CRAZED SADISTIC PSYCHOPATHS


Muslim fathers 'encourage' children to flagellate themselves with chains and knives.

An investigation by Cumbria Patriots

"It is illegal, yet the police are not keen to prosecute. (the report I have summarised below was from 2005)

In 2003 a routine doctor's appointment in north London a doctor asked 14-year-old to take off his shirt, he noticed something very worrying. Criss-crossed on the child's back were more than 50 lacerations. The doctor asked for an explanation and was told the boy "had inflicted the wounds himself during a religious ceremony; there was nothing to worry about. The doctor called in the child protection agency.

Through interviewing the family, a joint police and social services investigation team found that the child had made the lacerations by whipping himself with a zanjeer - a long chain with a set of curved knives attached at the end - as part of a flagellation ritual at the Idara-e-Jaaferiya mosque in Tooting, an area of Wandsworth, south London. The ritual, known as "zanjeer zani" or "zanjeer matam", was part of the Shia Muslim festival of Ashura, marked at the mosque every year."

Read the rest of the gory details of this sickening ritual at http://cumbrianpatriotbnp.blogspot.com/2008/01/scars-on-backs-of-young-children-as.html.

Anonymous said...

How true. I've been saying for many months, there is no solid opposition. Likud is a hollow shell. The so-called religious-right wing parties are in it to protect their communities and not much else. What is else is there?

Running to elections under these conditions will likely put the same anti-Jewish people back into power with a new mandate and duration.

Until there is a solid Right wing it is better to wait. Once the people understand how they must be pro-active perhaps a new party will stand up.

LemonLimeMoon said...

More and more it is proven by time that you cannot "create" states that G-d has not ordained from the beginning. He seperated the nations and gave them their place.

steve klein said...

That's about right Sultan. Jewish conservatives --- Charles Krauthhammer, David Horowitz and others --- simply love George W. Bush. After all, Bush is fighting the 'terrorists'.

I just posted the following to our Jewishviews list. A couple admire and will support John McCain.

So long as my party is dedicated to establishing a PLO terror state, I cannot see myself voting for a Republican at the national level. Of course Democrats followed suite and likewise pledged to establish a Palestinian state. This is to be expected.

Joni asked: "Where does it say that (Palestinian state) in the Republican National Platform?"


Presidential candidate John McCain or Mitt Romney will have to alter the language slightly to read: "Republicans agree with Presidential candidate John McCain that Israel’s plan to remove all settlements from the West Bank and several settlements from east Jerusalem is a courageous step toward peace...." but otherwise it makes sense.

In Bill Clinton's eight years, as much as he tried, he was not able to wrest as much land as Bush wrested from Israel in five years. Why? Maybe Republicans are trusted by Israelis as being strong on defense, unlike the Democrats who are generally known to be weak on defense? Maybe Israelis would trust a war hero like John McCain over a woman like Hillary Clinton to look out for her security interests. I'm sure radio talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbagh would urge Israelis to trust President McCain; conversely Republicans all over the country would sternly warn Israelis to not trust President Hillary Clinton! Did Republicans warn Israelis that Bush is treacherous and a traitor? A liar? No.

Why shouldn't we vote for Hillary Clinton since you know Republicans will warn Israelis that she is a TRAITOR and is not to be trusted? Seems to me, Bush has proven that Democrats in the White House are better for Israel.

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

The Broader Middle East and North Africa

(Page 37)

"We support President Bush’s vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security......

"Republicans agree with President Bush that Israel’s plan to remove all settlements from Gaza and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush.

"Republicans commend the government of Israel for its desire to pursue peace, even in the face of continuing terrorist attacks. This is demonstrated by steps Israel has taken, such as removing unauthorized outposts and improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

Keli Ata said...

Just a couple thoughts.

DK, Israel would have accepted the Gazans. They've tried in good faith to work with them.

The Gazans are the ones who want nothing whatsoever to do with Israel.

They have contempt for the name Israeli Arab and some will even go so far as to refuse airport personnel to post 'Israel' on the passports.

steve klein said...

Sultan, you purchased National Geographic: Inside 9/11. Just a few months back, I bought a DVD - video player in order to watch "Farwell Israel." It came highly recommended by AFSI. I've watched it a few times. It is the first and only DVD I have so far. I listen to books on audio while I am at work. Audible.com. I like history and biography; of course the Middle East, Israel, Islam, Jewish history, etc., are at the top of my list.

You recommend this Inside 9/11? It has good reviews at Amazon. I would be interested in any DVD's you have watched that you highly recommend. Thanks.

steve klein said...

What would you say to this Amazon reviewer Sultan? He raises fair criticisms, does he not?

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NR4GZ66MLE1/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2NR4GZ66MLE1


A goody-goody propaganda video, September 17, 2006
By Eurasian Caesar "caesar-novus"

This is a "goody-goody" Ronald Reagan propaganda style film. By that I mean that it tries to portray the US as the good guys being hit by the bad ones. It doesn't say what dirty role the US CIA had in birthing the whole horrible genie of fundamentalis Islam, how it set up, equipped and nurtured not only Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda, but a whole bunch of other loathsome Islamic terror outfits now stalking the globe - like the Islamic Brotherhood and the Taliban for instance: all just to defeat the USSR, and gain access to hydrocarbon rich regions, to fuel the greedy American consumerist lifestyle which US citizens take so much for granted. I am not a "conspiracy theorist"; these people are usually an absurd breed, going off at the other extreme tangent. I live in Peshawar, the hotbed of CIA mischief in the 1980s and 90s (and even now), and the area where I live - the University Town - housed all the actors on this stage: the US officials and spies, their clubs, the Afghan "Mujahideen" leaders' houses, etc. etc... I grew up seeing all this going on literally next door, and so would like to apprise my American friends of the unpleasant truth. The National Geographic and the Reader's Digest magazines are two long established icons of US media culture that have served as the unofficial (and therefore hard to suspect) mouthpieces of some of the most outrageous US propaganda drives... Never trust their political commentaries, although their articles about polar bears and planets can be very nice...

steve klein said...

This is only a part of another long review. His point is absurd. We do not all worship the same God. Not by a long shot.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FUF6QI/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_2?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

....The hard demonization of Islam in this film was just plain wrong as well. All sides had better start realizing that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. All sides have been guilty of not understanding the other. Fear begets more fear and ignorance serves as the vehicle of fear. This film tries to instill fear in Christians and Jews and I found that inappropriate as an educated born again Christian myself. Sorry for the religion, I normally don't bring it up but I think it's necessary in order to show where I'm coming from. In my opinion, I see no differences between organizations like Al-Qiada and the `Christian' Coalition. They both prey on the ignorance of their followers and use fear to galvanize them.

Sultan Knish said...

eurasian ceaser, is rather obviously a left winger and his review is filled with nonsense, the us did not set up bin laden, it helped to set up the mujahadeen

the islamic brotherhood, as i've recently written, predated the CIA

I rather doubt his peshwar story and he is a conspiracy theorist

Post a Comment