Regular members of Joshua's Army may recall me mentioning Effie Eitam a few times.
Eitam is the leader of the National Religious Party, a former General and an authentic Israeli hero who was the former commander of the IDF in South Lebanon.And he's someone who commands respect even from those who disagree with him. When I look at his face, I'm reminded of the images of the ancient Hebrew warriors who defeated the Amalekites, the Canaanites and the Seleucid Greeks and created Israel.
To give you an idea of his character, Eitam, during the forcible uprooting of his fellow Jews from their homes in Gaza defied the Israeli government and brought his wife and children into Gush Katif to stay with his fellow countrymen, ease their sorrow and share their burdens when they lost their homes.
Today in Ynet, Yediot's English news website, Eitam has a few clear and prescient things to say about Gaza....I chose to emphasize a few things.
"The Hamas regime in Gaza can boast of one significant achievement - it managed to unite leftists and rightists in Israel. Both myself and Kadima's Haim Ramon understand that we need to act decisively and firmly in order to topple Hamas.
If the past we heard calls in the center of the political map urging talks with Hamas, its brutal attacks on Sderot residents led almost everyone to adopt the same view, and I also hope that it would lead to united deeds that have two aims: Military acts against Qassam launchers and their masters, and making it clear to the Gaza civilian population that electing a terror group to represent them is the main punishment they must bear.
The State of Israel left Gaza and provided its residents with a historic opportunity to elect their leadership - and they elected a radical, belligerent terror group that is Israel's most bitter enemy. And now, as was the case with many peoples throughout history, they are paying the price of their decision. It is immoral and impossible to task us with bearing even some of the price for their mistake.
Never before in history have we seen an entity that enjoyed impunity in the face of self-defense actions of the side under attack. Hamas declared a war on its neighbor with no discrimination between military and civilian targets, and with no provocation on our part. Yet we do not punish Gaza's residents; we merely realize our right for self-defense while facing a situation that is as clear, simple, and just as it gets.
The question of whether residents of Dresden had to bear the price for electing Hitler to lead them, or whether the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to bear the results of the Japanese government's policies in World War II is controversial to this day. Yet as opposed to other nations who simply turned whole cities and hundreds of thousands of civilians into direct victims - we have utilized the right for self-defense in a phased manner that does not result in direct casualties.
Therefore, Israel has the right to cut off the electricity that it supplies to Qassam workshops, the fuel it provides, which is used by launching vehicles, and the cement used to build tunnels and posts that will be used to fire at IDF soldiers one of these days. Israel's right to cut off the supply of these goods cannot face any legal or moral controversy; it also cannot clash with common sense, which demands that we ensure that our enemies would not "enjoy" Israel's economic and strategic power while attacking it.
The price paid by the Gaza population will benefit Israel. This is a legitimate and moral price, and claims regarding a humanitarian disaster are unfounded. We are no longer in Gaza, we made sure not to leave behind anything, and we withdrew to the last inch. Now Gaza is an enemy state. As such, we must address its indiscriminate hostility when it attacks civilians in contradiction of all international conventions and basic morals.
A situation whereby Israel, which is under attack, is asked to maintain the Hamas regime firing at our citizens is unthinkable. The demands for the prevention of a humanitarian disaster should be directed to international aid organizations. We most certainly need to also call on Egypt, Gaza's good neighbor, to do something that is called for and natural for a neighbor that is not in war with Gaza like we are - allow humanitarian aid to go through.
Yet instead of this, we see growing international pressure on Israel to do something completely unreasonable and continue supporting its enemies.
Therefore, before we send our sons to fight in Gaza's alleyways, reinforced with cement that we have transferred to Gaza through crossing points, and before we expose them to the fire of weapons smuggled into the Strip from Egypt - we must try to topple the Hamas regime, and certainly to weaken it through sanctions, while hermetically sealing off the border between the two warring parties.
The impossible situation whereby the Palestinians continue to fire Qassams, while receiving electricity for their Qassam workshops and fuel used by vehicles that fire Qassams, is deluxe terrorism that fits well with the dictum: "The master of the house has gone mad."
In this case, we are the master of the house, and the price we are paying is the security of Sderot and Gaza-region residents, and the stability of the entire State of Israel."
5 comments:
I find it interesting that Mr. Eitam would bring up Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. He describes these actions as controversial. He is spot on here. These actions were unnecessary to win WWII. The reasons for these actions appear to have been primarily three fold. 1.)Lessen the amount of time that the war would continue. 2.) Save the lives of American and allied forces. 3. Finally, and this is perhaps the most controversial of all. The enemy had to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they were defeated. With Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden this was accomplished.
I;m not suggesting necessarily that the leaders of allied nations during WWII should not have done what they did. I'm merely poining out that I agree with Mr. Eitam that these actions were controversial.
For the record, I think the actios were justified. In war, the objective should be to defeat your enemy as quickly as you can while keeping your own casualties to a minimum. The regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were among the most evil to ever exist on earth. As such, ruthlessly destroying these regimes would be acceptable, however, a reasonable person could argue that the actions regarding Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden went to far and innocents should not have been targeted in this way. In other words, a reasonable person could suggest that the actions by the Aemricans regarding Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden were unjustified. Such a person could well be correct.
Nazi Germany nad Imperial Japan never had a chance to win WWII. They could have killed more people than they did and they could have stretched out the war for a longer period of time. Neither of these countries ever posed a survival threat to the US nor could they have successfully attacked the American main land. The current enemy we face poses a much greater threat to the US than our WWII enemies ever did or likely ever could have.
Hamas and their Islamic terrorist allies pose a far greater threat to Israel than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever posed to the United States. It is my considered belief that Israel would be justified in taking actions against Gaza and the "Palestinians" that are simillar to what the US took against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Since ultimately Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were never going to defeat Aemrica nor did they have any chance of actually winning WWII, Mr. Eitam is quite correct when he points out that American and allied actions were controverisal. In Israel case, Hamas and their Islamic terrorist allies pose a greater threat to Israel than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever posed to the United States. Hamas is a survival threat to Israel. As such, Israel would be justified in carrying out actions simillar to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden against Hamas and the nations who support them. There would be nothing controversial about it.
Hi Poster,
I agre witheverything you've written and disagree with you on only one aspect.
The Germans and Japanese came perilously close to winning WWII in th eearly days, mostly because they were prepared for war and none of the democracies were. I remind you of the strong isolationist movements in Britain and the US pre-war, that
Lend-Lease was a knock down drag out political dogfight and that the draft act of 1940 passed by just one vote.
After Pearl Harbor,had the Japanese known that there was literally nothing much between them and California,let alone Hawaii and had they not stupidly allowed themselves to be held up and delayed at Corregidor and Bataan and given the US time to get on a war footing, things might have been different.
In Europe, only the lucky escape of the British Army at Dunkirk and the heroism of the RAF kept the Nazis from invading Britain,and it could very easily have gone the other way.
In contrast,nowadays the US is prepared for war,and much stronger militarily than our enemies..including the Russians you always seem so fearful of.
(The Brits, of course, are another matter, unfortunately.)
Our main danger lies from the enemy within,which includes a number of politicians and ex-government figures on the payrolls of our enemies as far as I'm concerned.
But we will eventually overcome that as well..mark my words.
Regards,
ff
Freedom Fighter
I think you are right about WWII. I should have clarified my post. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were unlikely to have achived victory in WWII but they may have won more battles. They may have been able to invade California and attack the American homeland. Eventually they would have had to face the Soviet Union. They likely would have had to divert resources when this happened. It seems likely to me that Germany and Japan would have found themselves spread to thin.
Had the US not gotten involved in WWII I think it is very likely that the final defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have looked differently. The Soviet Union probably would have ended up the dominant power in Europe instead of the US and the Soviet Union being the two major powers. The nations of Western Europe probably would have been inocrporatated into the Soviet Empire. Then the US would have had to face the Soviet Union without Western European allies.
Of course I don't think that anyone can know for sure what would have happened had different decisions been made becuase they weren't made. In any even, stupid decisions such as theo ones you mention that were made by the Japanese seem to be a part of every war.
You write: "In contrast, nowadays, the US is prepared for war and much stronger militarily than our enemies...including the Russians you always seem so fearful of." We do not seem very prepared for war to me. Very few Americans seem to understand much about civil defense. For example, Americans are not being trained in basic military techniques nor do they understand how to maximize their chances of surviving a nuclear attack. To the best of my knowledge, there are no shelters for people to go in the event of nuclear weapons being detonated in an American city. In addition to this, the industrial base is hollowed out. We would have difficulty manufacturing enough things like shirts, shoes, and other necessities to keep a large war machine in the field. Also, we would need things like steel and other necessities in mass quantities. I'm not sure we have the indurstrial capacity to meet the demand that maintaining a large war machine would entail.
It is not that I am "fearful" of Russia. I simply have a healthy respect for them. They are probably the only country on earth who could single handedly win a war against the United States. Russia has a very large and very advanced nuclear arsenal and they support all of the leading Islamic terrorist supporting nations. Russia is the single greatest foreign threat to the United States.
You write: "Our main danger lies from the enemy within, which includes a number of politicians and ex-government on the payrolls of our enemies as far as I'm concerned." I agree whole heartedly!! I should add that the enemy within includes some members of the main stream news medka.
"But we will eventually overcome that as well..mark my words." Im marking your words. I pray you are right. I wish I could share your optimism. In the past the United States was a country that largely conducted its affairs based on Judeo-Christian principles found within both the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. As such, G_d has blessed us. Even when these principles did not necessarily dominate affairs, they played a very large role. Today;s America and Western Europe for that matter have largely turned their back on G_d. Its difficult to envision G_d continuing to bless us. As I see it our only chance is to commit to G_d and the principles found in His Word. Is this how you see it? Again, I hope and pray you are right that we will overcome our current enemies.
'Our main danger lies from the enemy within, which includes a number of politicians and ex-government figures on the payrolls of our enemies as far as I'm concerned.'
The single biggest threat to American freedom is the current incumbent of the White House.
BP, That is certainly how I see it. All in the West are being seduced away from the Lord in pursuit of the prize of politically correct multiculturalism. It certainly has us sinking in the UK.
It strikes me that we are very close indeed to the time when all the world is against Israel, the time at which Messiah steps in to take His possession. For the resistance of people to the Word of the Lord is enormous, they will not have it. And unless the people will have the Word, the Lord will not defend them/us.
Post a Comment