Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Monday, January 9, 2012

Will Jews Ever Learn?


Sometimes we feel like we are screaming into the wind when we talk about Israel, the relationship between the US and Israel and President Obama. There are those who listen. And there are those strangers and some friends (and relatives) who think that we are crazy and ill-informed when we speak about our concerns.


The following article has helped us understand that we are not alone when we feel helpless, unheard and ignored as it is an inherited blindness that most Jews have. Sometimes we feel the need to scream "don't you see what Obama is doing?" Why can't they see the obvious? They are not stupid, why do they choose not to understand?

People, especially Jews, seem to be oblivious the obvious and be placated by the misleading words that have been spoken by the President.  His words say one thing but his actions are completely different.  Many years ago, a good friend told me, "Judge a man, not on what he says but what he does."  Obama's words do not match his actions.

There will be some who will mention the upcoming joint military operations that have been planned for a couple years as an indication that the relationship is as strong as ever or the limited military equipment we are selling them. This is the magician's trick, get us looking one direction while you pull the bunny out of the hat from the other.  However, one operation or equipment sale does not replace all the negative actions taken by the Obama White House.

Yet, Jews throughout this country in the upcoming Presidential election will vote in overwhelming numbers for President Obama and get insulted when you ask them, why they would vote for a man who obviously does not hold Israel or its leaders in high esteem (sometimes we even say hate Israel.)  So when we read this quote in the following article, the light came on and it became clear. The quote is:

“the Jew learns not by way of reason, but from catastrophes. He won't buy an umbrella merely because he sees clouds in the sky.  He waits until he is drenched and catches pneumonia.”

Wow, what an insight! This quote is over 200 years old but it really sums up the Jewish intellect and their intentional avoidance of the real world around them.  Why would Jews in Germany ignore the very clear propaganda message being sent by the Nazis? Their leaders and they thought it never would occur in Germany, the home of Bach and Beethoven.  The handwriting was on the wall, but instead of paying attention, they whitewashed it.


Jewish holidays celebrate biblical victories but since the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., there have been none, only defeats until the establishment of Israel in 1948.
They have gotten so used to being beat up and kicked around, they think it is normal.  Jews have been kicked out of nearly every country (except the US) in the world at one time or another.

Now the US might be heading down that same path.  It is clear to anyone paying attention that if President Obama is re-elected, this country will abandon Israel, leaving it to stand alone against the world. No UN assistance will be forthcoming. No help from England or France will be there. Tiny Israel will have to fend for herself and when it wins (and it will), the world will demand they make concessions even before the war  is over!


So what happens when Israel is abandoned by the US? Initially, there will be sanctions placed on it as a result of some event where Palestinians are killed. An apology will be demanded and when that is not forthcoming, the sanctions will be applied. Additionally we suspect, the President will place Israel on a terrorist nation list which will cut off all military and foreign aid as well as prohibiting Americans from sending money or travelling to the "rogue nation." We indeed hope we are wrong but with history as our guide and clear headed evaluation of the situation, we do not think we are.

We need to make Jews around the world aware of the issues facing Israel and how their support of President Obama and other national leaders is detrimental to the Jewish state.  We must not vote for the President's reelection for if he is given four more years, the shabby treatment given Israel in his first term will only get worse. Without having to worry about another election, he will be free to do as he pleases. This will not be good.


We do not plan to be quiet. We will be obnoxiously loud about this issue. If one person hears our message, that will be a victory. Will you join us to spread the word? We do not want to get pneumonia when a simple umbrella would have prevented it.

Please read the following article. It is a mind-blower and definitely worth the time.

Conservative Tom


Looming Destruction: Will Jews Ever Learn?

Victor Sharpe - American Thinker,  January 8th, 2012

On the eve of the Second World War, Chaim Weizmann, who was to become Israel's first president, wrote the following about the persecutions taking place in Nazi Germany:
It would require the eloquence of a Jeremiah to picture the horrors, the human anguish, of this new Destruction and of a new book of Lamentations to depict the present plight of Israel among the nations.
Several decades earlier, Max Nordau, one of the most noted European philosophers of the 19th century, and supporter of Theodore Herzl, once told the great Zionist leader and Jewish patriot, Vladimir Jabotinsky, that “the Jew learns not by way of reason, but from catastrophes. He won't buy an umbrella merely because he sees clouds in the sky.  He waits until he is drenched and catches pneumonia.”
This prescient observation foreshadowed the many anti-Jewish pogroms that followed in the bloodiest of all centuries: the twentieth.  It also led, inexorably, to the swallowing up of the Jews of Europe by the calamitous German Nazi juggernaut, complete with enforced ghettoes, roving killing squads (the einsatzgruppen), the death camps, the gas chambers, and the starvation and horrors that forever will darken the face of Europe.
Before the Second World War broke out on September 3, 1939, Jabotinsky repeatedly warned the leaders of the Jewish communities what lay in store for them.  He begged them to defend themselves and endeavor to send as many people as possible to safety amongst their fellow Jews in British Mandatory Palestine.  This was before the British government slammed shut the gates of Mandatory Palestine to the desperate Jews fleeing Nazi genocide.
Both Max Nordau and Theodore Herzl had, many years earlier, warned the Jews that their future lay not in Europe, but in a reborn Jewish state, hopefully arising in the ancestral and biblical homeland, then known as Palestine and suffering under a 400-year-old Turkish Ottoman occupation.
In his book on the life of Jabotinsky, Shmuel Katz quoted from the great man's article, “Rattling off the Doloys,” in which Jabotinsky condemned the leaders of the Jewish communities and the assimilationists who refused to consider leaving Europe even as the ground was beginning to burn under their feet.  He pleaded with them thus in July 1939:
And I tell you, my dear colleagues, that this means going forward to destruction. D-E-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N. Learn the word by heart; and God grant that I am mistaken. If such words as treachery are being flung around, I regard every one as a traitor who helps to obscure the urgency of the most urgent of all the problems besetting the Jews in Eastern Europe.
And he referred to latent anti-Semitism as the sleeping “beast” which soon will again awaken and show itself among the Jews with redoubled appetite.  He added, “May God protect His people from a thousandth part of the pleasures the beast is promising himself in his brief sleep.”
Jabotinsky's appeals fell on mostly deaf ears, and he was accused of being an alarmist.  After all, these leaders countered, how could a civilized nation like Germany do such terrible things?  It was unthinkable.  And the result — the Holocaust –  was unthinkable, with the almost total destruction of European Jewry.
But decades before, the same Jabotinsky saw his dreams of a secure Jewish State in the lands both west and east of the Jordan River eroded by many of his fellow Jewish leaders in the Zionist movement.  They preferred to ignore or shrug off the steady betrayal of the Balfour Declaration by successive British politicians.
These Jewish leaders preferred passivity and a reluctance to confront His Majesty's government even as it diluted its obligations to the League of Nations' mandate for Palestine, which instructed Great Britain as the mandatory power to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home on both sides of the Jordan River.
Jabotinsky died from a massive heart attack — but also from a broken heart — at a Betar youth camp near the town of Hunter in New York State in 1940.  It is no wonder that his profound disappointment at the way Britain reneged on its promises to the Jewish people, and the way many of his own colleagues let him down over many years, led him to sum it all up in the Latin phrase “homo homini lupus — man to his fellow man is a wolf.”
Jabotinsky is buried next to Theodore Herzl on Jerusalem's Mount Zion.  But his life's work on behalf of the ever-persecuted Jewish masses was undone by far too many of his Jewish and Zionist contemporaries.
Jabotinsky, who almost singlehandedly created the Jewish Legion — which fought heroically and helped liberate the geographical territory of Palestine from the Turkish yoke — forever was forced to fight those of his colleagues who were faint of heart or obscurantist.
Elias Gilner, the author of War and Hope, The history of the Jewish Legion, described Jabotinsky's Herculean efforts as follows:
He had reached the soul of his people; he had overcome the stolidity and short-sightedness of small men in high places; he had defeated the myopic Zionist “friends” and prevaricating assimilationist foes. He had triumphed.
But, as the above shows, his triumph was fleeting.
Now fast-forward one hundred and seven years to 2012 and to what Jabotinsky would see if he were able to miraculously return to life.  The State of Israel, despite often suffering from the same “shortsightedness of small men in high places,” has nevertheless managed wondrous achievements since its rebirth in 1948 in its ancestral and biblical homeland.
But acts so antithetical to all that Jabotinsky stood for continue unabated.  Successive Israeli governments expel Jewish villagers and townsfolk from ancestral territory.  They have done it both in Gaza and throughout Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank).  In Gaza, their homes, farms, and schools — and even their cemeteries, where many victims of Arab terror had been buried — were given away to the ever-hostile Muslim Arabs — the same ones who call themselves Palestinians but who are a fraudulent and invented people.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who now lies in a coma, created this plan, which he called “disengagement.”  He felt that by arbitrarily retreating from areas of the Land of Israel he would reduce or even end international pressure for further withdrawals.  But the United States administration under George Bush and now under Barack Hussein Obama, as well as the international community, jumped upon this concept of retreat and predictably demanded further withdrawals without end.
President Bush, despite claims by Prime Minister Sharon that the president recognized Israel's communities across the green line, such as Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel, expected Israel to make additional withdrawals.  Under President Obama, the demand is for Israel to return to the 1949 armistice lines — described by former Foreign Minister Abba Eban as the Auschwitz borders.  This threat still hangs over Israel.
Sharon thus opened a monstrous can of worms and set in motion an unholy precedent.  The discredited idea of “land for peace,” whereby Israel always gives away land but never receives peace, was bad enough, but then “disengagement” became a euphemism for all that Jabotinsky fought against in his lifetime.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader and Holocaust-denier, embraced by Presidents Bush and Obama as a “man of peace,” has no intention of ending the appalling anti-Jewish incitement broadcast by his Palestinian Authority-controlled media — in itself a broken Palestinian obligation under the Oslo Accords.
Abbas will continue to press for the U.N.'s acceptance of a state called Palestine with its capital in Jerusalem.  If he succeeds, with the willing connivance of an ever more anti-Israel United Nations, the city will be divided again, and — for the first time in history — Arabs and the Islamic world may yet celebrate Jerusalem as the capital of an Arab state.  Abbas will still call for Israel to be flooded with the millions of descendants of those Arabs who were urged to leave by their corrupt leadership in the 1948 Arab-Israel war.  This, the entire world knows, will mark the end of the one and only sovereign Jewish state — what the fifty-seven Muslim states and so many other nations in the world relish.
Endless concessions to the late Yasser Arafat were greeted by him and by all Arabs as signs of Israeli weakness.  Doing the same with Abbas is no different — the practice merely reveals the absence of logic by far too many Israeli politicians and follows the dreary and myopic tradition exemplified by the “short-sightedness of small men in high places.”
In a depressing way, Max Nordau was right about many of his fellow Jews.  The present Israeli government, like the leaders of European Jewry before them who spurned and derided the impassioned and desperate pleas of Jabotinsky, the “Jewish Garibaldi,” is in danger of again ignoring the heavy rain clouds above.
But I fear that the world today, especially with Barack Hussein Obama as president and commander in chief of the United States, will repeat what happened to the isolated Jews during the Holocaust: it will look away.
The world, which is still so foolishly dependent on its oil supplies from hate-filled Middle Eastern mullahs, sheikhs, kings, dictators, and tyrants, may for economic reasons — and, sadly, thanks to endemic anti-Jewish prejudices — again do nothing or actively embrace and assist yet another holocaust, this time enveloping the six million Jews of the reconstituted and embattled State of Israel.
Let us hope that, empty White House assurances aside, the Jewish state will finally learn from history and act before it suffers not pneumonia, but an Iranian nuclear winter.
Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of the trilogy Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state

7 comments:

  1. The only specific thing I could find about Obama in the article is this sentence: "Under President Obama, the demand is for Israel to return to the 1949 armistice lines — described by former Foreign Minister Abba Eban as the Auschwitz borders."

    First, Obama is not "demanding" anything from Israel. In his speech, which we have discussed on various occasions, Obama proposed negotiations. And now, this guy says Obama "demanded" Israel "return to the 1949 armistice lines." What he actually proposed as a starting point for negotiations was "1967 borders with mutually-agreed land swaps."

    Obama has supported Israel against the Palestinians bid for statehood at the U.N. He has sold Israel state-of-the-art warplanes, bunker buster bombs to use against Iran, etc. and and is doing the largest-ever joint military exercises with them. He has sent Panetta to Egypt and Turkey to try to improve their relations with Israel. Financial aid to Israel has continued under Obama, and Panetta warned against cutting it in the next round of Congressional budget cuts. Obama has done very strong economic sanctions on Iran's banks and has European agreement now on the oil embargo. As I told you, this is a very risky move for him, and if it causes a recession in Europe/U.S., it will doom Obama's reelection.

    So, I have just given you several pieces of strong evidence that the U.S. is not "abandoning" Israel. Where is your evidence to the contrary? I read that whole article and the only substantive claim against Obama is the misstatement of what Obama said, which even a worse distortion of what Obama said than the previous articles you have posted on the same subject. As you know, I support Ron Paul's foreign policy on Israel, not Barrack Obama's, but at least I am not going to stoop to misrepresenting what Obama has done and said regarding Israel.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. The purpose of the article was not to make a list of Obama's violations of the trust that Israel has placed in America. Rather, it was a discussion of how Jews are blind to future events and place trust in authority figures who lie and deceive them. Obama being the latest.

    As far as Bammy goes, A friend would not "demand" that their friend start discussions with an enemy who has pledged its destruction. And on top of that tell their friend that their borders must be "1967" lines! All of the "land for peace" has meant that Israel gives up land for no peace.

    Israel's leaders must get some guts and tell Obama where to shove it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, your only evidence that the U.S. is "abandoning" Israel is this guy's misstatement that Obama is "demanding" Israel accept the 1949 borders. The only "lie and deception" here is coming from this guy, not anything Obama has done or said.

    I know you believe that the "two-state solution" is not possible or workable given the current governments in Israel and Palestine. I agree.
    But let us at least acknowledge that the two-state solution did not originate with Obama. It has been the official policy of the United States for decades.

    For example, here is a 2005 "road map" statement from George W. Bush: "Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations."

    Note Bush's repeated use of the word "must" regarding the border arrangement, especially his insistence that Israel "must" agree to a "meaningful linkage" between West Bank and Gaza. His language is more specific and "demanding" (shall we say?) than anything in Obama's speech.

    I am curious. Were you as critical of Bush as you are of Obama? Was the Bush administration "road map" which calls for land for peace also assailed by you as "abandoning" Israel?

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I was critical of Bush and any other politician worldwide who has decided that for the first time in recorded history that a country that wins a war must give up land!

    The so-called "meaningful link" must be a road, elevated or below ground level or a tunnel or a combination. How do you secure that?

    No country which is attacked and wins should be forced to retreat from the land they conquered. That has been the rule of countries for centuries, why is Israel treated differently? Can you answer that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Looking at asymmetrical warfare over the last 60 years, certain patterns can be seen. Whether we are talking about the U.S. in Vietnam/Afghahistan/Iraq, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, or Israel in Palestine, the sequence of events is now quite predictable.

    First, the side with superior military power easily overruns the region, takes control of all strategic resources and locations, overthrows the existing government and sets up its own provisional government in the area.

    Then there is a protracted insurgency against the occupation for so long as the occupation continues whether it be the Viet Kong in Vietnam, the Mujahideen in Afghaistan, or Hamas in Palestine. The insurgents can continue their guerrilla warfare indefinitely, regardless how much military resources the other side may deploy (indeed, the Americans and Soviets applied far more military power than Israel possesses and yet after many years of occupation, the insurgents still operate). There are bombings in Baghdad nearly every day!

    Military generals keep saying that there are only political solutions -- not military "conquering" solutions -- possible in these occupation/insurgency scenarios. Yet, after decades of experience in Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Palestine, it seems some people think military "victory" is right around the corner! That is why they always drag on for years and years with no resolution.

    This is the rationale for the two-state solution, which, unfortunately remains out of reach at least for the foreseeable future. For your interests, the best plan for Israel is to just keep expanding their settlements on the West Bank. It's working.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  6. We have always agreed on the futility of negotiations under existing conditions. My only complaint has been about the persistent misstatement of Obama's speech and record with respect to Israel.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.