March 12, 2008

Spitzer Agonistes

As human nature once again trumps politics, some literary suggestions for the former Governor, from ARLA

November 26, 2007

IT'S THE ROOT CAUSES: PRES. BUSH MEET NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

PRIME MINISTER CHAMBERLAIN, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 5, 1938

As regards future policy, it seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that any sort of friendly relation, or possible relations, shall I say, with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe and the gradual destruction of democracies. Of course, on that hypothesis, war has got to come, and that is the view--a perfectly intelligible view--of a certain number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House….

If that is hon. Members' conviction, there is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living. Does the experience of the Great War and of the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that if some new war started that would end war any more than the last one did? No. I do not believe that war is inevitable. Someone put into my hand a remark made by the great Pitt about 1787, when he said:
"To suppose that any nation can be unalterably the enemy of another is weak and childish and has its foundations neither in the experience of nations not in the history of man."

It seems to me that the strongest argument against the inevitability of war is to be found in something that everyone has recognized in every part of the House. That is the universal aversion from war of the people, their hatred of the notion of starting to kill one another again….

What is the alternative to this bleak and barren policy of the inevitability of war? In my view it is that we should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and of talks man to man on the basis that each, while maintaining his own ideas of the internal government of his country, is willing to allow that other systems may suit better other peoples. The party opposite surely have the same idea in mind even if they put it in a different way. They want a world conference. Well, I have had some experiences of conferences, and one thing I do feel certain of is that it better to have no conference at all than a conference which is a failure. The corollary to that is that before you enter a conference you must have laid out very clearly the lines on which you are going to proceed, if you are at least to have in front of you’re a reasonable prospect that you may obtain success. I am not saying that a conference would not have its place in due course. But I say it is no use to call a conference of the world, including these totalitarian Powers, until you are sure they are going to attend, and not only that they are going to attend, but that they are going to attend with the intention of aiding you in the policy on which you have set your heart.

I am told that the policy which I have tried to describe is inconsistent with the continuance, and much more inconsistent with the acceleration of our present programme of arms. I am asked how I can reconcile an appeal to the country to support the continuance of this programme with the words which I used when I came back from Munich the other day and spoke of my belief that we might have peace in our time. I hope hon. Members will not be disposed to read into words used in a moment of some emotion, after a long and exhausting day, after I had driven through miles of excited, enthusiastic, cheering people--I hope they will not read into those words more than they were intended to convey.

I do indeed believe that we may yet secure peace for our time, but I never meant to suggest that we should do that by disarmament, until we can induce others to disarm too. Our past experience has shown us only too clearly that weakness in armed strength means weakness in diplomacy, and if we want to secure a lasting peace, I realise that diplomacy cannot be effective unless the Consciousness exists, not here alone, but elsewhere, that behind the diplomacy is the strength to give effect ........

I cannot help feeling that if, after all, war had come upon us, the people of this Country would have lost their spiritual faith altogether. As it turned out the other way, I think we have all seen something like a new spiritual revival, and I know that everywhere there is a strong desire among the people to record their readiness to serve their Country, where-ever or however their services could be most useful. I would like to take advantage of that strong feeling if it is possible, and although I must frankly say that at this moment I do not myself clearly see my way to any particular scheme, yet I want also to say that I am ready to consider any suggestion that may be made to me, in a very sympathetic spirit.

Finally, I would like to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday in his great speech. Our policy of appeasement does not mean that we are going to seek new friends at the expense of old ones, or, in-deed, at the expense of any other nations at all. I do not think that at any time there has been a more complete identity of views between the French Government and ourselves than there is at the present time. Their objective is the same as ours--to obtain the collaboration of all nations, not excluding the totalitarian States, in building up a lasting peace for Europe. That seems to me to be a policy which would answer my hon. Friends' appeal, a policy which should command the support of all who believe in the power of human will to control human destiny. If we cannot here this afternoon emulate the patriotic unanimity of the French Chamber, this House can by a decisive majority show its approval of the Government's determination to pursue it.

[The vote which followed supported the government 369 to 150.]

June 06, 2007

D-DAY ANNIVERSARY. HORSEFEATHERS WONDERS: WHERE IS OUR PATTON?

The Speech

Somewhere in England

June 5th, 1944

The big camp buzzed with a tension. For hundreds of eager rookies, newly arrived from the states, it was a great day in their lives. This day marked their first taste of the "real thing". Now they were not merely puppets in brown uniforms. They were not going through the motions of soldiering with three thousand miles of ocean between them and English soil. They were actually in the heart of England itself. They were waiting for the arrival of that legendary figure, Lieutenant General George S. Patton, Jr. Old "Blood and Guts" himself, about whom many a colorful chapter would be written for the school boys of tomorrow. Patton of the brisk, purposeful stride. Patton of the harsh, compelling voice, the lurid vocabulary, the grim and indomitable spirit that carried him and his Army to glory in Africa and Sicily. They called him "America's Fightingest General". He was no desk commando. He was the man who was sent for when the going got rough and a fighter was needed. He was the most hated and feared American of all on the part of the German Army.

Patton was coming and the stage was being set. He would address a move which might have a far reaching effect on the global war that, at the moment, was a TOP-SECRET in the files in Washington, D.C.

The men saw the camp turn out "en masse" for the first time and in full uniform, too. Today their marching was not lackadaisical. It was serious and the men felt the difference. From the lieutenants in charge of the companies on down in rank they felt the difference.

In long columns they marched down the hill from the barracks. They counted cadence while marching. They turned off to the left, up the rise and so on down into the roped off field where the General was to speak. Gold braid and stripes were everywhere. Soon, company by company, the hillside was a solid mass of brown. It was a beautiful fresh English morning. The tall trees lined the road and swayed gently in the breeze. Across the field, a British farmer calmly tilled his soil. High upon a nearby hill a group of British soldiers huddled together, waiting for the coming of the General. Military Police were everywhere wearing their white leggings, belts, and helmets. They were brisk and grim. The twittering of the birds in the trees could be heard above the dull murmur of the crowd and soft, white clouds floated lazily overhead as the men settled themselves and lit cigarettes.

On the special platform near the speakers stand, Colonels and Majors were a dime a dozen. Behind the platform stood General Patton's "Guard of Honor"; all specially chosen men. At their right was a band playing rousing marches while the crowd waited and on the platform a nervous sergeant repeatedly tested the loudspeaker. The moment grew near and the necks began to crane to view the tiny winding road that led to Stourport-on-Severn. A captain stepped to the microphone. "When the General arrives," he said sonorously, "the band will play the Generals March and you will all stand at attention."

By now the rumor had gotten around that Lieutenant General Simpson, Commanding General of the Fourth Army, was to be with General Patton. The men stirred expectantly. Two of the big boys in one day!

At last, the long black car, shining resplendently in the bright sun, roared up the road, preceded by a jeep full of Military Police. A dead hush fell over the hillside. There he was! Impeccably dressed. With knee high, brown, gleaming boots, shiny helmet, and his Colt .45 Peacemaker swinging in its holster on his right side.

Patton strode down the incline and then straight to the stiff backed "Guard of Honor". He looked them up and down. He peered intently into their faces and surveyed their backs. He moved through the ranks of the statuesque band like an avenging wraith and, apparently satisfied, mounted the platform with Lieutenant General Simpson and Major General Cook, the Corps Commander, at his side.

Major General Cook then introduced Lieutenant General Simpson, whose Army was still in America, preparing for their part in the war.

"We are here", said General Simpson, "to listen to the words of a great man. A man who will lead you all into whatever you may face with heroism, ability, and foresight. A man who has proven himself amid shot and shell. My greatest hope is that some day soon, I will have my own Army fighting with his, side by side."

General Patton arose and strode swiftly to the microphone. The men snapped to their feet and stood silently. Patton surveyed the sea of brown with a grim look. "Be seated", he said. The words were not a request, but a command. The General's voice rose high and clear.

"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

The General paused and looked over the crowd. "You are not all going to die," he said slowly. "Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen."

"All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken shit drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a fuck for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-asshole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of shit!" The men roared in agreement.

Patton's grim expression did not change. "There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily", he roared into the microphone, "All because one man went to sleep on the job". He paused and the men grew silent. "But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did". The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!"

The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn't let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!

"We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world", Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do". The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the "Old Man's" choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army's history and they would become the bible of their slang.

"My men don't surrender", Patton continued, "I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull shit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"

Patton stopped and the crowd waited. He continued more quietly, "All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands". But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'."

Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir". I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?" He answered, "Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed". I asked, "Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?" And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!" Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the rode to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."

The General paused and stared challengingly over the silent ocean of men. One could have heard a pin drop anywhere on that vast hillside. The only sound was the stirring of the breeze in the leaves of the bordering trees and the busy chirping of the birds in the branches of the trees at the General's left.

"Don't forget," Patton barked, "you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton'."

"We want to get the hell over there", Patton continued, "The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit."

The men roared approval and cheered delightedly. This statement had real significance behind it. Much more than met the eye and the men instinctively sensed the fact. They knew that they themselves were going to play a very great part in the making of world history. They were being told as much right now. Deep sincerity and seriousness lay behind the General's colorful words. The men knew and understood it. They loved the way he put it, too, as only he could.

Patton continued quietly, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"

"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"

"I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!"

"From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that."

The General paused. His eagle like eyes swept over the hillside. He said with pride, "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, "Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana." No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, "Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!"

March 31, 2007

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING? PASSOVER 1943--2007

        Passover 2007 will occur in a world that Hitler would recognize. Nazism may be gone, but it has been succeeded by another utopian perversion, totalitarian Islam, which blames its own failings on the Jews and teaches its followers the glories of martyrdom in pursuit of a Jew free world. Its ideological leaders promise they will succeed, using nuclear weapons, where Hitler failed. Meanwhile the world, once again, bends over backwards trying to deny the threat and figuring out new ways to feed the crocodile. Now, instead of Chamberlain flying to Berlin to talk with Herr Hitler, we have Nancy Pelosi flying to Damascus to meet with the chinless opthalmologist, Basher Assad.
        Here are the words of one who refused to deny reality.
          (Horsefeathers remembers and misses the excellent blog of Arthur Chrenkoff where this interview first appeared.)

Marek Edelman is the last surviving military leader of the heroic Jewish Uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. (See his account here.)He recently spoke to a Polish television channel TVN24, and the interview has been re-published in a Polish weekly "Przekroj". It's not available anywhere else in English (or for that matter electronically), so I take this opportunity to translate and publish extensive excerpts from the interview. Edelman experienced evil many times in his long and distinguished life; he has also faced it and fought it bravely. What he has to say bears listening to.
--Arthur Chrenkoff

Interviewer: Not a day seems to go by in Iraq without a terrorist attack, and in the last few days two Polish soldiers and a Polish journalist have died.

Edelman: And do you know any war where nobody dies? I don't. Alas, it's in man's make-up; there's a fatal flaw there that makes him kill, for pleasure or over some silly beliefs.

Interviewer: So this war is one over some silly beliefs?

Edelman: Now, now. Who started killing people? Americans didn't invade a wonderful democratic Iraq. There was a dictatorship there, torture, terror.

Interviewer: But there are people who say it's not our business.

Edelman: And whose business is it? Every war with fascism is our business. In 1939 there were also many people who said that the war in Poland was not their war, and what happened? Great nations fell because politicians listened to those who were saying that it's not worth dying for Gdansk [Danzig]. If only we'd intervened militarily after Hitler re-entered Rhineland we probably would not have had the war and the Holocaust.

Interviewer: Many people do understand that, but they don't understand why the Americans have to go to the other side of the world and fight over Iraq now.

Edelman: And why did they go to Europe then? Who defeated Hitler and saved Europe from fascism? The French? No, the Americans did. We thanked them then because they saved us. Today we criticise them because they're saving somebody else.

Interviewer: Returning to the question about having Polish soldier on the ground in Iraq. Many Poles don't want them there.

Edelman: If they don't want them there, let's just keep waiting and then let's see from which direction the rockets and the bombs will come from - will we in the end be lorded over by Saddam's viceroys or Bin Laden's, just as we were once lorded over by Hitler's viceroys.

Interviewer: Do you really believe in such a scenario?

Edelman: It's possible. If we will keep closing our eyes to evil, then that evil will defeat us tomorrow. Unfortunately there's more hatred in men than love. Those who murder understand only force and nothing else. And the only force that is able to stand against them is the American democracy.

Interviewer: But the Americans aren't going too well with introducing democracy in Iraq.

Edelman: That's true, but it's a difficult war. The Second World War went for five years. Democracy tends to be structurally weak. Dictatorship is strong. Hitler was able to mobilise several million people and chase another few million into gas chambers or slave labour. But only democracy saves the humanity and saves millions of lives. The more I see people getting murdered the more I believe that we need to put a stop to that. The murderers understand only deeds.

Interviewer: What about the photos from Abu Ghraib - don't they cause you to start question that American democracy?

Edelman: Well, it happened. Among several hundred thousand American soldiers there were a few perverts...

Interviewer: But the incident nevertheless seriously damaged America's standing. What to say to Polish people after the death of several more of our soldiers?

Edelman: But they died fighting for their freedom. How many thousands of people died in the Warsaw Uprising [in 1944]?

Interviewer: But those people then were fighting for their country.

Edelman: They were fighting for their world. Free and democratic. Just like those who died during the martial law [in Poland in 1981-3]. Did they die only for Poland? No. They died for the freedom of the whole Europe, for the freedom of all those enslaved behind the Iron Curtain.

Interviewer: But the Spanish withdrew their troops from Iraq after the terrorist attack in Madrid.

Edelman: Please don't tell me what the Spanish did. So what? Do you seriously think that it will save them from further attacks? No. The weak just get punched in the head. Pacifism lost a long time ago.

Interviewer: There are more and more voices saying that Poland shouldn't work so close with the Americans and that instead we should get closer to France and Germany.

Edelman: France used to be a great power, culturally and intellectually. And what happened to them? They didn't want to fight for their own democracy, they thought it wasn't really their war [in 1939]. And they lost everything, because when you bend over and take it - even once - then you're finished. And what's that whole talk about the difference between American politics and European politics? There is no other politics but international democratic politics. If we withdraw from Iraq now, what do we have left? Cosying up to Iran and Saudi Arabia? ...

Interviewer: Is it possible to introduce democracy by force?

Edelman: Yugoslavia showed that it's possible...

Interviewer: You used your own personal history and your moral authority to appeal for the intervention then.

Edelman: Yes... Those who say that you don't have to fight for freedom, don't understand what fascism is. I do.

March 26, 2007

CLEARING AWAY CANT

        Moments of utter triumph have been rare, of late. Most of the time cowards are competing with one another as to who can submit more completely to the jihadis. Hillel Neuer is one guy I'd want in the foxhole with me when the jihadis come to get us. Note the reaction of the UN castrati! Priceless.

October 20, 2006

WAR AGAINST THE JEWS

Friend of Horsefeathers, Ruth King, has authored a brilliant analysis of the "war within the war on terror". We would add that if the war on the Jews succeeds it will spell the end of civilization and a re-primitivization of the entire world, under Allah.

The War Within the War on Terror
Written by Ruth S. King
Thursday, October 19, 2006

Author Rita Kramer once wrote that anti-Semitism is the bedrock culture of Europe, always stirring within the great wars that have shaken the continent. The alarming escalation of anti-Semitism on the continent today would certainly bear this out.

In the aftermath of World War II, anti-Semitism was subdued in most Western nations, whose citizens were appalled by the genocide that killed one third of world Jewry. This was the case even in England which was involved in a confrontation with Jewish fighters determined to liberate Palestine.

The Russians and the satellite communist nations showed no such inhibitions. Jews who survived the Holocaust to return to Hungary and Poland were met with pogroms. Stalin set into motion fake trials, purges, “disappearances,” deportations and executions of Jews, including members of his inner circle and staunch supporters of the Communist party. Only his providential death in 1953 aborted his planned deportation of all Jews to Siberia, a likely death sentence for most. Even so, the oppression of Jews continued. Secret police hounded Jews, restricting their movements, their right to worship and congregate, fining and imprisoning them.

In 1967, Israel’s lightening success in the Six Day War invigorated Zionism and inspired pioneering Soviet Jews to become refuseniks. Their numbers and determination grew with Israel’s (more difficult) victory in 1973 and they demanded the right to emigrate. American Jews, also more confident and secure after 1967, lobbied their legislators to support Soviet Jewry. The result was the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 which denied normal trade with states that imprisoned their populations. The rest is history.

Subsequently, free of the yoke of Russia and dazzled by Israel's success, Eastern European countries made some efforts to restore Jewish communities and examine their own sordid history.

But now that the Western democracies are forced to confront Islamic terror, their Jewish citizens face an alarming surge of anti-Semitism. While most of it is fomented by Europe's large Moslem populations, the indifference and complicity of many non-Moslem citizens is startling.

The blame for this state of affairs is usually directed at Israel for its purported “occupation” of Arab lands. This is to reverse reality. In truth anti-Semitism escalated after the Oslo agreements, the Clinton/Rabin brokered swindle that made terrorism another form of statecraft. It grew exponentially with the continued pattern of surrender to terror culminating in the retreat from Gaza and Olmert’s offer of a “convergence” plan which would ineluctably thrust Israel back to the 1949 armistice line.

For a while anti-Semitism was cloaked in anti-Israel rhetoric. Dozens of leftist and “anti-war” political and communal organizations, academics, notably in the Middle East departments, the international media and, of course, the United Nations, all practiced this mode.

The Moslem world never bothered to cloak its anti-Semitism and is now full of hysterical hatred. We hear primitive anti-Jewish ranting from Iran’s president and the imams and mullahs whose vicious fulminations are so well documented by MEMRI, Daniel Pipes and the contributors to Jihad Watch. They embolden suicide bombers and Moslems worldwide, along with their cheerleaders in every corner of the world.

Even in Malaysia--with no Jewish population--the former Prime Minister Mahthir Mohamad called Jews an arrogant world power who gets others to fight its wars and issued a call to arms: “ It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.” The “way” is mass murder and his view clearly resonates far beyond Malaysia.

In South Africa, once home to a large and successful Jewish population, editorials set the climate, describing Hezbollah and Hamas as “Islamic Liberation Groups”--while studiously ignoring suicide attacks against innocent Israelis.

The Jewish Times of Australia (August 16) reports: “The Parramatta Synagogue has been attacked for the second time in the space of two weeks with blocks of cement hurled at it in the attack overnight….In another incident two weeks ago, an attempt was made to set alight a Jewish youth movement centre at Bondi.”

From Corsica, September 1, 2006: “A small explosive device was found Friday morning outside the synagogue of Bastia on the French island of Corsica, police said. The synagogue, the sole on the island, was vandalised in 1998 by unknown people with prayer books torn up, silk scarves shredded and religious images defaced, windows broken and silver candlestick holders stolen…”

Argentina is infamous for two terrorist attacks, the first against Israel’s embassy in 1992, which killed two dozen people, and the second in 1994, against the Jewish Community Center, which killed 85 and injured more than two hundred. Recently hundreds participated in an anti-Israel rally carrying placards denouncing the Jewish state as “genocidal” and pledging support to Hezbollah. The rally, initiated by Moslems, attracted large groups of non-Moslems including students, members of the Workers’ Party and a sizable group of middle class housewives and professionals.

In Venezuela, the Jewish communal organizations are harassed by Hugo Chavez whose pro-Jihadist sentiments were highlighted during his visits to Teheran. Hezbollah is given support and training grounds while Jews are increasingly frightened, their institutions unprotected.

In France, Belgium, and throughout the European Union, anti-Semitic incidents are on an alarming rise, including beating, stalking, desecration of synagogues and murder. The Jewish communities in EU nations are urged to keep a “low profile.” The president of Spain dons a keffya in solidarity with the intifadists and Italy joins England, Portugal, Spain and Germany in refusing to allow El Al cargo planes carrying IDF equipment from U.S. military bases to Israel to land and refuel.

In England the rise in anti-Semitic incidents is so high that a commission has been established to investigate what Melanie Phillips calls “the hate fest against the Jewish people.” Early reports of the commission state that Moslems are eightfold more likely to hate Jews. But they find like-minded folks among rank and file Britons, in the media, in government where the mayor of London and assorted parliamentarians indulge in outrageous anti-Semitic rants, and in the universities where attacking Israel is part of the core curriculum.

In Oslo, a synagogue was bombed on September 17. The home of Nobel peace prizes has a large Moslem population, but the non-Moslems are only too eager to join in bashing Jews. Jostein Gaarder, prominent author of Sophie's World, wrote in Aftenposten, Norway's leading newspaper "We do no longer recognize the state of Israel....May spirit and word sweep away the apartheid walls of Israel. The state of Israel does not exist. It is now without defense, without skin."

A sign of the times: IDF officers have been given a memorandum warning that they may face arrest and charges of war crimes in Europe. Organizations in Europe have begun to compile cases against government officials as well, and they too are warned against visiting Europe.

And here in the United States, our sunny corner of the Diaspora, there are more and more anti-Israel demonstrations. In Salt Lake City, Utah, the mayor permitted defense attorney Robert Breeze to hold a "Death to Israel" demonstration on September 6, despite protests from the Jewish community. On August 12, 2006 in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Seattle, anti-war rallies attracted thousands from Moslem communities and the socialist left. From their podiums one could hear a cacophony of anti-Jewish taunts, demanding an end to American support for “the Jewish Nazis and Kikes.” Similar hate fests are repeated on many campuses.

Even the political arena is different. Democratic candidates usually made the requisite bow to America’s “special relationship” with Israel. The landscape has changed. Connecticut’s Senator Joseph Lieberman, an orthodox Jew who was a vice presidential candidate in 2000, where his nomination at the Democratic Convention elicited cheering chants of “Joe and Hadassah,” is now called “Jew Lieberman” on a website promoting the Democrats.

And, last, mainline Protestant churches routinely promote boycotts of Israel and disinvestment from companies that do business with Israel. In fact, the major strong defenders of Israel are in the Evangelical community which represents forty percent of Republican voters in America.

Had enough? This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I’ll stop. And what is the reaction of the world’s Jews? Predictably, some Jewish organizations blame Israel. Recently the World Jewish Congress sent a mission to Israel to warn Olmert that Israel’s hard line policies in Lebanon had spurred the malignant recrudescence of Jew hatred. Other groups, like the English “Engage,” voice opposition to boycotts and violence against Jews, but keep the drum beating about the “occupation” and the suffering inflicted on Arabs, which only fuels the sentiments of their enemies. Jews continue to gravitate to the anti-war left and demonstrate a dangerous unwillingness to acknowledge the necessity for tough measures to find and control would-be terrorists on our soil.

What Jews fail so signally to recognize is that the most important cause of this resurgence of anti-Semitism is the perception of Israel in retreat. It is undeniable that a powerful and victorious Israel elevated the international prestige and confidence of the Jewish people everywhere. By contrast, an Israel which has lost its way and forfeited its claim to its legitimate and historic rights is viewed with contempt, encouraging and emboldening anti-Semites. Jew hatred is an opportunistic virus that attacks weakened organisms. Like those nations of Eastern Europe which hated Jews even after there were none left, the Arabs will hate Israel and the Jews even if they were all to leave or die. Only Israel’s determination to succeed, to prevail, to prosper and to win will sedate them and anti-Semites all over the world.

There is a war within the war on terror. It is a war against the Jewish people. The consequence of ignoring the link between a strong and secure Israel and the safety of all Jews will be a dark and cold winter for Jews throughout the Diaspora.

September 24, 2006

BILL CLINTON'S SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY

        Now we know why Bill Clinton lost bin Laden: his overdeveloped sense of responsibility! In an entertaining outburst of that famous Clinton high moral dudgeon--last seen when he denied having sex with "that woman", Bill explained to Chris Wallace that he was just too responsible!
"I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," Clinton said. "And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. . . . You got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

August 07, 2006

THE NEW YORK TIMES FINDS A NEW HERO: HASSAN NASRALLAH

        Totalitarian killers in pursuit of a murderous utopian agenda can always count on the New York Times to transform them into noble representatives of the popular will. Whether Stalin or Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao, Fidel, Che or Arafat, the Times will humanize them. The archetype was cuddly Uncle Joe Stalin as seen through the eyes of Walter Duranty. Count on Duranty's successors to enlighten us about how personable these tyrants are, how charismatic, good to their pets and beloved by the people. Mass forced starvation, forced abortion, millions in gulags, genocide? Not part of "all the news that's fit to print". When atrocities like China's cultural revolution somehow do make it to the Times, they're accompanied by a barrage of articles explaining why such measures are really regrettably necessary. Furthermore, the Times helps us identify with the human struggles that burden these leaders. We learn of their personal kindness, their tragic family losses, their affability, their love of children and pets, but especially of how much they care for ordinary people, the kind of people the Times itself believes require help from their betters on its editorial Board.
        Unfortunately for the Times, all except Fidel of the above named tyrants have shuffled off this mortal coil, and Fidel seems on his way, so there's need for a new hero. Hugo Chavez is one possible candidate now auditioning, and indeed the Times has featured articles from the Walter Duranty-Stalin--Lenin ("You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs") playbook to airbrush out the belligerent, genocidal threats. However Chavez has apparently not begun murdering people in large numbers so he leaves something to be desired.
        Today however, the Times has found its man: Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. In an article we'd deem worthy of the 2006 Lord Haw Haw prize, Neil MacFarquahar (Arab World Finds an Icon) can barely contain himself as he plants a big wet kiss ("genius")on a cowardly psychopath out of the 8th Century, who has acquired weapons that allow him to kill while hiding behind women and children. This two bit thug, this worthless lump of human protoplasm, is portrayed as a caring, modest and thoughtful man; "He is believed to live modestly and rarely socializes outside Hezbollah’s ruling circles. He avoids the telephone for safety reasons, but has met thousands of constituents and dispatches personal messengers to congratulate them for weddings and births..." Now there's a man we could all emulate. This serial killer, with aspirations to annihilate the Jews, "...is a powerful orator with a robust command of classical Arabic, yet he makes himself widely understood by using some Lebanese dialect in every speech..." Wow, what a wordsmith! And a man of the people! Just the kind of man to evoke submissive awe from a journalist with a secret craving for violent heros. And topping it all off, why the man is cuddly and has a sense of humor: "...He comes across as far less dour than most Shiite clerics partly due to his roly-poly figure and slight lisp. But he also — very unusually — cracks jokes." We're sure he'll have lots of good ones to tell about the apartment buildings that collapsed when hit by one of his rocket bombs filled with ball bearings and metal shards.
          Thanks New York Times, for an up close and personal look at this wonderful man who is contributing so much to the restoration of the Caliphate and a return to the 8th century, free of infidels. Wouldn't it be a little more honest though, if you renamed yourselves The Jihad Times? All the news the fatwas allow.

August 06, 2006

"THE LANGUAGE OF THE MAILED FIST"

        Now that the corrupt, Jew hating UN has gotten into the act with a Security Council resolution which, if actually implemented, will stop Israel before completing the destruction of Hezbollah, there will surely be increasing clamor for the U.S. to sit down and talk with dictators Assad of Syria and Ahmadinejad of Iran. It has already begun. This has the all too familiar feel of the late 1930's (see Victor Hanson)when the educated classes in Europe wanted to believe war could be averted through signed diplomatic agreements. Let us therefore remember the dealings of peace loving leaders with Herr Hitler in 1938.
        It is hard to believe, but Neville Chamberlain was hailed for his Munich ("Peace in our time")agreement with Hitler. When he spoke about his efforts and the resultant agreement, it was with pride and an assumption of moral righteousness in his cause, the cause of peace. After all, he argued, the masses yearned for peace. In his speech to Parliament on Oct. 3, 1938 he spoke proudly of his appeasement policy: "...Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity..." What a good and decent man, striving so hard, so rationally to remove any cause for suspicion and animosity by setting an example, proving his own tolerance, indeed generosity, towards Hitler and friends. Chamberlain would have fit right into our Oprah-fied, culture of feelings, for he urged his listeners to sympathetically understand Hitler's predicament--and Mussolini's too: "After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution..." These are the words of a man who would be welcome in today's Democratic party.
        Winston Churchill's eloquent response is well known, however in my re-reading of the House of Commons Debate, another member, the now mostly forgotten Duff Cooper stands out for his clarity of thinking and expression. His reply to Chamberlain is well worth reading in its entirety as he argues vainly for dealing with Hitler by the application of force, not diplomatic niceties. Here is a portion: "...That is the deep difference between the Prime Minister and myself throughout these days. The Prime Minister has believed in addressing Herr Hitler through the language of sweet reasonableness. I have believed that he was more open to the language of the mailed fist....
        The Prime Minister has confidence in the good will and in the word of Herr Hitler, although when Herr Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles he undertook to keep the Treaty of Locarno, and when he broke the Treaty of Locarno he undertook not to interfere further, or to have further territorial aims, in Europe. When he entered Austria by force he authorised his henchmen to give an authoritative assurance that he would not interfere with Czechoslovakia. That was less than six months ago. Still, the Prime Minister believes that he can rely upon the good faith of Hitler; he believes that Hitler is interested only in Germany, as the Prime Minister was assured....

The Prime Minister may be right. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, with the deepest sincerity, that I hope and pray that he is right, but I cannot believe what he believes. I wish I could. . . . I remember when we were discussing the Godesberg ultimatum that I said that if I were a party to persuading, or even to suggesting to, the Czechoslovak Government that they should accept that ultimatum, I should never be able to hold up my head again. . . . I have ruined, perhaps, my political career. But that is a little matter; I have retained something which is to me of great value--I can still walk about the world with my head erect."
        Horsefeathers has wondered, where is our Churchill? We'd be quite happy to settle for the eloquent power of Duff Cooper, warning us that the only thing our enemies will respond to is "the language of the mailed fist".
Praise the Lord, and Pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free.

The complete speech is here.

June 27, 2006

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: BILL KELLER AS EDITOR OF THE NYTIMES IN 1944

        Horsefeathers has argued that contemporary Liberalism is a childishly immature faith, rooted in utopian fantasies about human nature. Many have expressed shocked outrage at the NYTimes's self-appointment as defender of the public's "right to know" about secret war plans. Real American lives are at stake, but the NYTimes has its principles and Bill Keller will defend them to the last drop of his Bombay Sapphire Gibson. A hallmark of the immature mind is its devotion to abstract principles regardless of real life experience. "The public's right to know" is one such principle; in the real world, grown ups know such abstractions, if not tempered by experience, can lead to mass death and destruction. Not in Timesworld, where noble minded self flattery trumps reality.
        Horsefeathers was outraged, but not shocked by Bill Keller's decision to reveal secret war plans to our enemies, for we have long understood there is a strong unconscious alliance between utopian Islam and utopian Liberalism. For infantile liberals, the very notion that our government might practice deception, engage in spying, conduct secret operations, etc. offend their childish sensibilities. Thus Bill Keller assumes a stance of highmindedness in defense of his assisting the jihadis in their efforts to kill us infidels. What he does apologize for is his breach of 'etiquette'. How perfect! No apology for endangering real lives, but real regret for not personally answering all his emails. Gee Bill, we're sure Mommy taught you how to hold your knife and fork and how to graciously accept compliments when you sang 'Somewhere over the Rainbow' wearing your sister's dress.
        Now let's do a thought experiment and imagine Bill Keller, brimming over with his metrosexual, politically correct sensibilities back in 1944 when news of the Normandy invasion was held close to the vest. The horror! The duplicity! The barbarism!

        During World War II, Operation Bodyguard was the overall Allied strategic deception plan in Europe for 1944, carried out as part of the build-up to the invasion of Normandy. The major objective of this plan was to lead the Germans to believe that the invasion of northwestern Europe would come later than was actually planned, and to threaten attacks at other locations than the true objective, including the Pas de Calais, the Balkans, southern France, Norway, and Soviet attacks in Bulgaria and northern Norway.
        The name 'Bodyguard' was derived from a comment by Winston Churchill to Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943, saying, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Roger Hesketh, who helped plan and carry out the operation while working at 'Ops B', the deception sector of SHAEF, recalled in his book the three main goals of Operation Bodyguard: To induce the German command to believe that the main assault and follow up will be in or east of the Pas de Calais, thereby encouraging the enemy to maintain or increase the strength of his air and ground forces and his fortifications there at the expense of other areas, particularly of the Caen area. To keep the enemy in doubt as to the date and the time of the actual assault. During and after the main assault to contain the largest possible German land and air forces in or east of the Pas de Calais for at least fourteen days.
        Operation Bodyguard was divided into three main sub-operations: Operation Fortitude, which had both a North component (designed to lead the Germans to expect an invasion of Norway) and a South component, designed to lead them to expect an invasion at the Pas de Calais. The third main sub-operation was Operation Zeppelin, to indicate landings on Crete or Roumania. There were also numerous smaller operations...

Posted at 04:20 PM by Stephen
Link • History • Comments (1) • Email This Post

May 19, 2006

LET'S END THE 'PHONY WAR'

"The prospect of being hanged in a fortnight", said Dr. Johnson, "concentrates the mind wonderfully." Apparently the good Doctor erred. But then again, who could have anticipated the Post-Modern Western mind, with its ability to deny reality and rewrite the past? Here's the latest from Iran:

"...Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth..."

So while Hitler's project continues, under the banner of the Religion of Peace, what is the West doing? Pretending to be at peace with Iran while its diplomats meet over drinks and dinner at the Four Seasons. Instead of concentrating its collective mind, to deal with the threat, it is trying to find the right food for the crocodiles. We're acting as if this is a 'phony war'---like the period from October 1939-April 1940, when, after the initial German invasion of Poland, the nations settled into a lull in the fighting, what the British press called a "sitzkrieg". Our very own Hitler wannabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be nuts, but he correctly understands these endless diplomatic ditherings as cowardly indications of weakness, and responds accordingly.: "...Your incentives are definitely not more valuable than nuclear technology...How dare you tell our people to give up its gold in return for chocolate...?".

The clock is ticking and no Churchill can be discerned. It's the 1930's, but this time a religious fanatic is about to acquire nuclear weapons. Reasoning with such a man is as useful as discussing quantum chromodynamics with my Bichon. Unlike my dog, for whom the prospect of a treat will cause her to behave gratefully, even listen attentively to whatever I wish to discuss, Mr. Ahmadinejad, possesses no such social deference when it comes to infidels. He's the leader of a global Jihad whose goal is to annihilate the Western infidel nations in the name of Muhammad. It is time to treat him, and Iran like dangerously rabid dogs.

Horsefeathers does remember the past, and not just the era of appeasement, the 'low dishonest decade' of the 30's. We also remember Harry Truman and the dropping of the A-bomb. (See earlier post here) We have had 61 years of peaceful relations with Japan since they surrendered. We would therefore tell the Iranians that planes are in the air headed towards Tehran, ready to drop atomic bombs, unless the Iranians immediately agree to halt their nuclear program and to turn their ongoing weapons program over to the United States. We would add that we will not limit ourselves to targeting their weapons programs. We will attack their oilfield facilities in order to utterly destroy their economy and their potential to make war. Whatever that does to the world price of oil, we're prepared to live with it and make the necessary sacrifices in order to remove this gathering danger.

If not now, when?

Posted at 11:18 AM by Stephen
Link • History • Comments (4) • Email This Post

March 29, 2006

MANLINESS NOT WELCOME AT THE NEW YORK TIMES

        The New York Times publishes sensitive portraits of Taliban Yalies, empathically describing their struggles to adapt to Western culture. Meanwhile, real heros, men who are fighting Jihadis who would eagerly decapitate the whole editorial board of the Times, are ignored. Who knew the story of Paul Smith Congressional Medal of Honor winner? Here he is, caught in a firefight, outgunned, outnumbered and protecting his comrades:

"...To fire the machine gun, Sgt. Smith had to stand in the APC's main hatch, his body exposed from the waist up to a withering fire coming at him from three directions. On the ground through the blur of combat, Sgt. Matthew Keller saw Sgt. Smith grimly firing measured bursts from atop the APC even as a hail of bullets hit around him.

Sgt. Keller yelled at him to get out. Sgt. Smith looked back at him and with a slight shake of his head, made a cutting motion across his throat with his right hand. Sgt. Keller would always remember the look in his eyes. "There was no fear in him whatsoever."

As Spc. Seaman, crouching in the adjoining hatch, fed him ammunition belts, Sgt. Smith directed an expert and murderous fire with the long-barreled M2, hitting Iraqis who tried to enter the compound through the gate or over the wall. He tried also to suppress renewed fire coming from the Iraqis in the guard tower to his left.

Finally, one of his fellow sappers, First Sgt. Timothy Campbell, led a small fire team which stole up to the tower and killed all Iraqis inside. But by this time, Sgt. Smith's machine gun had fallen silent. The attack had been broken. Nearly 50 Iraqi dead lay all over the area. Others were in retreat. But Sgt. Smith was now slumped in the turret hatch, blood soaking the front of his uniform..."

See the fuil story here.
Then contemplate the lines written in celebration of Horatio, defender of civilization:

...But the Consul's brow was sad,
And the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall,
And darkly at the foe.
``Their van will be upon us
Before the bridge goes down;
And if they once may win the bridge,
What hope to save the town?''

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
``To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods...

Where is the Thomas Macaulay to celebrate in song and story our own Horatio at the Bridge?

When the oldest cask is opened,
And the largest lamp is lit;
When the chestnuts glow in the embers,
And the kid turns on the spit;
When young and old in circle
Around the firebrands close;
When the girls are weaving baskets,
And the lads are shaping bows;

When the goodman mends his armor,
And trims his helmet's plume;
When the goodwife's shuttle merrily
Goes flashing through the loom;
With weeping and with laughter
Still is the story told,
How well Horatius kept the bridge
In the brave days of old.

"goodman"? "goodwife"? No wonder there's no gratitude, no celebration--not at the New York Times.

Posted at 05:00 PM by Stephen
Link • History • Comments (1) • Email This Post

June 16, 2005

PETER PACE, USMC

The incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the first Marine to hold that position. Peter Pace is one of the military leaders Tom Friedman has been condescending to and Sen. Durbin has been comparing to Pol Pot.

"...Born in Brooklyn, the son of an Italian immigrant, Pace had been raised in New Jersey. His military service had begun with the Naval Academy from which he graduated in 1967. A year later, after a year at The Basic School at Quantico, which molds all new second lieutenants, he was on his way to Vietnam. He arrived in time to be assigned as a platoon leader in Golf Company, 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, then involved in heavy fighting in the Battle for Hue City. It was an experience that marked him forever. He was the third platoon commander in as many weeks. When he joined it, there were only 14 men remaining in the platoon instead of the authorized 43. Under the glass on his desk he keeps a photo of Lance Corporal Guido Farinaro, the first Marine to die while under his command. There would be many more to die. After 37 years he can still reel off their names. He himself escaped unscathed in his 13 months of Vietnam combat.

Five days after the announcement of his nomination, honoring a commitment made almost a year earlier, he spoke to members of the senior class at West Point taking Law 403, Constitutional and Military Law. He told the cadets that he had worried over how he might perform in battle and that he "presumed that you are wondering about the same things." He reassured them, "If you feel fear, it is natural." He went on to say that soldiers want to follow their leaders: "They want you to be good. They will cling to leaders who care about them."

In a speech given a year or so ago to a group of veterans from the Battle for Hue, he said, "This is an amazing country. My dad was born in Italy. His son is the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You can't do that any place else in the world." He soon will be able to amend that to read that as an immigrant's son, he is now the first Marine to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
See the rest of the profile here.

Posted at 09:46 AM by Stephen
Link • History • Comments (0) • Email This Post

June 08, 2005

UNSUNG HEROES

Every once in a while Horsefeathers encounters a good story that is both surprising, counter-intuitive, and relatively unknown in this part of the world.

When we hear of Jews who have left their mark on the modern world we are most often told about great physicists, doctors, scholars, musicians, bankers. The story I heard recently is about a group of young Jewish men and women who became amateur spies, men and women not only of sensibility but of action, and great courage, a group led by a charismatic leader whose strength and knowledge played a powerful part in the victory of the Allies in World War I in the Middle East.

Before the outbreak of the war in 1914 the Jews of Palestine were poised to be loyal to the Ottoman Empire, which controlled all of the Levant at that time. But as soon as Turkey became an ally of the Central Powers it became apparent that the Germans were the real masters of the country.

It also became clear to Aaron Aaronsohn, the leader of the Palestinian Jewish community, that the German aspirations to seize and control the Middle East would make any Zionist hope of a Jewish Palestine virtually impossible. He decided that the Turkish-German hold over Palestine must be broken, and that the British Government would be the best hope for a Jewish Palestine.

To achieve these ends he formed a group with the name of NILI, an acronym based on the initials of its Hebrew password: Netzach Israel Lo Yeshaqer, “The Glory of Israel shall not lie down,” a phrase from the Book of Samuel. The leaders of NILI were a triumvirate of outstanding men—besides Aaron Aaronsohn, a scientist of international reputation, there were Absalom Feinberg, a brilliant poet and an extraordinarily courageous man, and Alex Aaronsohn, Aaron’s younger brother, who achieved some fame later in America as an author and lecturer.

One of the biggest problems that the leaders of NILI had was to contact and convince the officers of the British Military Intelligence in Cairo that this group of eager amateurs, officially citizens of the Ottoman Empire, and Jews to boot, had something of value to offer the mighty British military. For over a year, from 1915 to well into 1916, Alex Aaronsohn and then Absalom Feinberg made many attempts to get past the gatekeepers of British Intelligence and were met with disdain and insolence on each occasion.

It wasn’t until Aaron Aaronsohn himself decided to break through to the people at the top that contact was finally established. Aaronsohn was not one to be taken lightly. A giant of a man with a booming voice, he was by then world famous as an agronomist and the leading expert in Middle Eastern agricultural science. After a long, dangerous, and secretive journey from Palestine by way of Berlin and Copenhagen, he arrived in London and, through his commanding presence and reputation, he was able to convince diplomat Sir Mark Sykes and through him Lloyd George that NILI was an important source of military intelligence.

Having been a scientific protégé of the Baron de Rothschild, Aaronsohn was used to dealing with important men. Eventually he came to know and work with all of the major players in the Middle East from Djemal Pasha, Governor General of Palestine, to General Edmund Allenby. Here, from his diary, is an excerpt about one of Aaronsohn’s meetings with T.E Lawrence:

“Sunday, August 12th, 1917.
Cairo-Alexandria.

I had a chat with Captain Lawrence this morning. Our interview was devoid of amenitity. He has been too successful at an early age—and is infatuated with himself. He gave me a lesson on our colonies—the mentality of the people—the feelings of the Arabs, etc., etc. As I was listening to him I could almost imagine that I was attending a conference by a scientific anti-semitic Prussian speaking English….One would gather from the above interview that nothing can be done in Judea and Samaria where Faisal will never gain access. There might be something to do in Galilea. But Lawrence will conduct his investigation by his own methods in order to learn of the mentality of the Jews in Galilean colonies. If they are in favour of the Arabs they shall be spared, otherwise they shall have their throats cut. He is still at the age where people do not doubt themselves—happy young man! He is plainly hostile to us…”

What did NILI do to help the Brits win the war in the Middle East? They were able to create a network of “agents” everywhere in Turkish Palestine: Medical officers in the Turkish Army, engineers who were at the head of road building and water supply, recruiting officers, commissariat officers. Others were on the front lines collecting first- hand data about military positions, guns, etc. Even the strategies of the Turkish GHQ were discovered.

The net result was that the British acquired an accurate assessment of the Turkish order of battle by the middle of 1917, as well as a clearer picture of the degree of Turkish disorganization and the poor morale of the Turkish forces. But perhaps most important of all was what Aaronsohn himself was able to contribute strategically because of his knowledge of the Sinai desert. He knew that there was water available in the Sinai and where it was located. This intelligence was crucial in Allenby’s breaking through the Turkish front by a concentrated attack against Beersheba.

Eventually NILI came to be regarded as the Brits’ best and most reliable source of intelligence. This is suggested by Major General George MacDonough, Director of Military Intelligence at the War Office, who gave a lecture in 1919 at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich: “You will no doubt remember the great campaign of Lord Allenby in Palestine and perhaps you are surprised at the daring of his actions. Someone who is looking from the side lines, lacking knowledge about the situation, is likely to think that Allenby took unwarranted risks. That is not true. For Allenby knew with certainty from his intelligence (in Palestine) of all the preparations and all the movements of his enemy. All the cards of his enemy were revealed to him, and so he could play his hand with complete confidence. Under these conditions, victory was certain before he began.”

A few years later, Raymond Savage, Deputy Military Secretary to Allenby, told a New York press conference: “It was very largely the daring work of young spies, most of them natives of Palestine, which enabled the…Field-Marshal to accomplish his undertaking effectively.”

But despite NILI’s contribution to British Military intelligence, it was Aaron Aaronsohn’s powerful influence on Allenby which shaped the latter’s strategy in the 1917-18 Palestine campaign. Aaronsohn knew Turkish Syria and it rulers as perhaps no other man then did and could articulate a compelling view of the political and military situation which Allenby was able to exploit victoriously.

Aaron Aaronsohn died mysteriously in May of 1919 during a flight over the English Channel at the age of 43. At the time he was an important participant in Anglo-Zionist affairs and had he lived he would doubtless have made significant contributions to the development of Israel.

Posted at 03:18 PM by Yale
Link • History • Comments (1) • Email This Post

May 29, 2005

Schadenfreude Department: EU Constitution defeated in France

How wonderful is it? Schroeder and Chirac, the Bush bashing Euro-twits are in deep deep trouble. Bush, Blair and Howard are re-elected! What does it matter that the French wanted more socialism than the EU constitution promised? The quest for a European utopia has been derailed. And there aren't many dictators like Saddam, in a position to trade oil vouchers for French support at the UN.

PARIS - French voters rejected the European Union's first constitution Sunday, a stinging repudiation of President Jacques Chirac's leadership and the ambitious, decades-long effort to further unite the continent.

Posted at 08:01 PM by Stephen
Link • History • Comments (0) • Email This Post

<< Back to Horsefeathers