swordpentrumpet.com

Here is an interesting piece that appeared at Breitbart.com.  The historical trend of blaming victims for their troubles continues to this very day.  Seventy years of Churchill’s comments, both sides of the congressional aisle fail to grasp the disconnect between their words and actions when it comes to supporting the troops and paying the disability bill for their sacrifice.  It certainly demonstrates that intelligence and a knowledge of history are not pre-requisites for public office.

The Moderator

The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were “partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer” in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.

Churchill made the claim in an article entitled “How The Jews Can Combat Persecution” written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.

He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.

“It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts,” the article read.

“It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.

“These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

“For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer.”

The article adds: “The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is ‘different’.

“He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed.”

Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as “sober, industrious, law-abiding” and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.

“There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man,” he wrote.

The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university’s archive of Churchill’s papers.

At the time, Churchill’s secretary advised him it would be “inadvisable” to publish it and it never saw the light of day.

Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002.   

In her usual indefatigable style, Caroline Glick’s op-ed pieces are a sine qua non for understanding the situation in Israel.

The Moderator

Exposure of Olmert’s incompetence by government committee has set course for his administration’s replacement by one capable of defending Israel

 By Caroline B. Glick

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is certain that he has nothing to be ashamed of. As the first Israeli leader to have led the country to military defeat, Olmert is proud of his performance in office and thinks that we should be too. Thursday, Ha’aretz reported the gist of Olmert’s February 1 testimony before the Winograd Committee which he appointed to investigate the government and IDF’s (mis)handling of the war last summer against Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hizbullah. The Ha’aretz story was one of only a handful of reports detailing testimony brought before the commission and so it is reasonable to assume that Olmert’s office, rather than the commission members, was the source of the story. Olmert’s advisors presumably believe that publishing their spin on his testimony will deflect criticism away from him and onto the IDF and so buy the premier more time in office in spite of the fact that only 3 percent of the public supports him.In his testimony before his hand-picked investigators, Olmert claimed that he had approved a contingency plan for war against Hizbullah in the event that Hizbullah abducted IDF soldiers along the Lebanese border. Those plans, Olmert claimed, involved the conduct of an air campaign and a small-scale ground campaign against Hizbullah with the goal of destroying its missile arsenal and forcing it to disarm in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559.Olmert stated that he only ordered the helter-skelter large-scale, inconclusive 48-hour ground offensive at the end of the war because the IDF’s small-scale ground operations until that time had been unsuccessful. He ordered the large-scale offensive, in which 33 soldiers were killed just before their comrades were ordered to retreat, because he wanted to get a better ceasefire resolution at the UN Security Council. This is the case, he argues in spite of the fact that the Security Council had already unanimously passed the resolution before the offensive began.”Improved” Security Council Resolution 1701 is hailed by Olmert and his colleagues Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Amir Peretz as a brilliant, pro-Israel document that was well worth the sacrifice. They claim this in spite of the fact that 1701 makes no mention of either Iran or Syria; treats Israel, a UN member nation, and Hizbullah, an illegal terrorist organization, as equals; treats the Saniora Government in Lebanon which collaborated throughout the war with Hizbullah as a positive force; enhances the role of UNIFIL in spite of the fact that its forces reported IDF troop movements in real time on their Web site; and has enabled Hizbullah to rearm in broad daylight.

Olmert’s testimony to the Winograd Commission is interesting for two reasons. First, if Olmert was telling the truth then far from clearing his name, he incriminated himself. By March 2006, the IDF had war gamed his chosen strategy of an air campaign with a limited ground component. The strategy had failed. The fact that he chose it anyway casts doubt on his competence to lead the country in war. Moreover, while the public understood just days after the war broke out that it was imperative to call up the reserves and launch a large-scale ground offensive, Olmert clung to his failed air-based strategy until the end stages of the war. He called up the reservists so late that they had insufficient time to train for their missions.

Olmert’s testimony, like his office’s apparent decision to leak it to the media, is also interesting for the arrogance it betrayed. Olmert told us his version of his testimony because he thought we would accept it without question. If he had thought we would question him, it is hard to imagine he would have revealed what he said because his defenses are so easily taken apart.

Indeed, within hours of the Ha’aretz report, MK Yuval Steinitz, the former chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee did just that when he told Israel Radio how strange Olmert’s statements are. If he ordered the IDF to prepare for war, Steinitz asked, why did the IDF do nothing to prepare for war? If he had a plan to respond to the abduction of IDF soldiers with a large-scale military campaign, then why did he slash the IDF’s budget by a half a billion shekels two months before the war?

With 57 percent of Israelis praying for new elections, it is hard to see how Olmert and his colleagues can ever regain the public trust. But the fact that their careers are about to end, while no doubt tragic for them, is a happy occasion for Israeli society as a whole and a great victory (more…)

By Yoav Stern and Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondents

Three Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.According to the report, a diplomat from one of the gulf states visiting Washington on Saturday said the three states, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response.

Al-Siyasa further reported that NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an Attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack.

According to a British diplomat who spoke to an Al-Siyasa correspondent, Turkey will not repeat the mistake it made in 2003, when it refused to open its airspace to U.S. Air Force overflights en route to attacking Iraq.

British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday that Israel is negotiating with the U.S. over permission for an “air corridor” over Iraq, should an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities become necessary.

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh on Saturday denied the reports and said Israel has no such plans.

Today’s lead article focuses on the longest-held American hostages in the world. Their story resonates with the difficulty encountered in the assymetrical nature of the War on Terrorism. Funding for much of Islamic terrorism is drug-related, and the sheer lunacy of our country’s intervention in Kosovo - a major drug-money route to various Islamofascist terrorists - only underscores the impotence and inaction of the Clinton administration in its so-called war on terrorists. The Moderator

Will the Colombian Hostages Ever Go Free?

“Over the past four years, while the world’s eyes have remained riveted to the political, religious, and social turmoil engulfing the Middle East, three American defense contractors have been held captive, waiting for the U.S. government to free them and return them to their home.

On February 17, 2003, one month before President George W. Bush gave Saddam Hussein his final ultimatum to relinquish control of his nation or face war, Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, and Thomas Howes were flying a drug surveillance mission in southern Colombia on behalf of their employer, Northrup Grumman. The aircraft crashed, and the men were taken captive.

Gonsalves, Stansell and Howes are now the longest-held American hostages in the world.

The article marking the fourth anniversary of their captivity, originally published in the Arizona Republic, has been reprinted below in full below:”

OnPoint

House Resolution Sails, Senate Resolution Sinks (from Patriot Post)

Liberals looking to embarrass the President on the world stage achieved a mixed victory Friday and Saturday of last week. The House voted 246-182 for a resolution denouncing President Bush’s 21,000-troop increase in Iraq while offering backhanded support to the troops currently fighting our Jihadi enemies. All but two Democrats were able to lure 17 Republicans to pass the measure, which came after 44 hours of floor discussion. We won’t use the term “debate” here, because there was no debate to speak of. Speaker San Fran Nan Pelosi refused to allow Republicans the option of offering a competing measure and, recognizing she had a slam dunk with her own resolution, moved things along with a few moments dedicated to supreme political grandstanding.

For those of you keeping score, and we hope you all are, here are the names of those 17 Republicans: Mike Castle (DE), Howard Coble (NC), Tom Davis (VA), John Duncan (TN), Phil English (PA), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), Bob Inglis (SC), Tim Johnson (IL), Walter Jones (NC), Ric Keller (FL), Mark Kirk (IL), Steve LaTourette (OH), Ron Paul (TX), Tom Petri (WI), Jim Ramstad (MN), Fred Upton (MI), James Walsh (NY). (It should be noted that only two of these 17, Reps. Duncan and Paul, voted against the original war resolution in 2002.)

Pelosi proudly stated that the resolution “will signal a change in direction in Iraq.” It most certainly will do that. As Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor noted, our enemies “will have received all the political rhetoric they require to convince their followers that complete victory is at hand.”

(Read remainder of story here.)

Iran Defies Nuclear Ultimatum

(Note: Iran’s president, a religious fanatic bent on ushering in the 12th Iman based upon cataclysmic events he provides, is asking - make that “begging” - for a joint US/Israeli strike. For the world’s sake, let’s hope this occurs sooner rather than later. The Moderator)

VIENNA, Austria — Iran has ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze uranium enrichment and has instead expanded its program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said yesterday. The finding paves the way for new U.N. sanctions.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report to the Security Council and its 35-nation board that Tehran also has continued to build a heavy water reactor and related facilities which, along with enrichment, could help it develop nuclear arms.

In addition, the report said, Iran ignored a Security Council call to cooperate with the IAEA in its efforts to shed light on suspicious nuclear activities.

The conclusions, while widely expected, could serve as the trigger for the council to start deliberating on new sanctions against Iran.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said U.S. officials have already begun consulting with allies about the next steps, including sanctions. He said officials expect the council to meet on the matter as early as next week.

“The report gives us a pretty clear picture that shows that Iran has not changed its behavior, has not changed its views and is continuing on the path of defiance…”

(Read the rest of the story here.)

CNSNews is reporting that freed prisoners in Israel commit more acts of terror.  Gee, what a suprise.  NOT!

Arab Prisoners Freed in Exchanges Committed More Terrorism, Group Says
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
February 19, 2007

He said the organization was mounting a campaign to try to prevent the further release of terrorists. Keeping them in prison would likely save Israeli lives and save the army the trouble and danger of having to recapture the terrorists in the future, he said.

On January 20, 2007, I will return to writing on this site. It will feature the men and women of America’s armed forces serving in combat and the combat zone. In addition to articles honoring the heroic sacrifice of these great Americans, you will find an occasional analysis of the shooting portion of the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as commentary concerning events in Iran, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and Israel.

Below is a post I found at YnetNews  It underscores what one Israeli sees as “truth” in the current circumstances of another Muslim-instigated war in the Middle East.

Love or Hate Israel?
The world is divided into four when it comes to the “Israel Question”

1. There are those who support Israel totally and unconditionally and subscribe to the dictum of Golda Meir that “Israel does not have to apologize to anyone for anything”. Obviously, most of these are Jews and Israelis.

2. There are those who “like” Israel most of the time but when Israel does a bad thing don’t like us anymore. This dislike normally lasts until the next terrorist attack and the bodies of Israeli men, women and children are splattered all over the place.

3. This group, which is the biggest one and includes many countries and governments, CNN, SKY News, the BBC and so on, does not like Israel at all. They are highly susceptible to Arab anti-Israel propaganda which would have made Joseph Goebles proud. However, when the Arab “Militants” carryout terror attacks, this group is inclined to temporarily moderate their anti-Israel stance albeit for a very short period. This group is the one renounced for decrying anti-Semitic attitudes claiming that “some of my best friends are Jews!” or “I even employ Jews, you know.”

4. This group hates Israel, Israelis, Jews and anyone who has the slightest pro-Israel or Jewish sentiment. It feeds on hatred and deceit and blames Israel and the Jews for every thing from the Great Flood to Chicken Flu and the Zionist Imperialism of the Jews. The main protagonist is the raving lunatic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad aided an abetted by President Bashar al Assad with overt and covert support from the UN headed by His Incompetent Nincompoop, Kofie Anan, the French who have prostituted themselves in the international arena so many times and who would have ceased to exist if not for the help of the United States and the WWII Allies, Russia, China (who sells the missiles to Iran and Syria which kill, maim and terrorize Israelis and has “occupied” Tibet for years with brutal repression) and other international groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who do not deem that the human rights of Jews and Israelis are worth watching over.

What this illustrates is that the vast majority of the population of this planet does not care for the Jewish People and the Jewish State, would probably be very happy to see the end of us and most of them will never change their attitudes. Anyone who feels that this is an exaggeration should take off their rose tinted glasses. Our enemies should also know that WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE!

Our sympathy goes out to the families of all the UN personnel killed by Israeli fire but the direct cause for this whole debacle is the UN itself, which by failing to enforce its own resolutions and allowing Hezbollah to run wild on the border with Israel, has endangered the security of the State of Israel and is fully responsible for the death, misery and destruction caused by its failures.

David , Karmiel (Israel) (07.28.06)

One of the obscenities of the 20th Century was the cyclic nature of genocide. Another even greater evil arising from this same century was Holocaust Denial. An actionable crime in Germany, no such prosecution can occur in America because of our Constitution’s First Amendment. Yet, one of the startling inconsistencies within the conservative homeschool movement, as exemplified by the Dominionists, Reconstructionists, and Neo-Puritans, et. al., is its love affair with theonomy, a position subscribing to the application of God’s Law articulated in the Torah (Pentateuch) to American jurisprudence. This is tantamount to a Christian version of Shari’ah law in Muslim countries being applied to a Constitutional Republic.

Despite this dichotomy, let us examine one of the foremost Reconstructionist thinkers of the 20th Century, Rousas John Rushdoony, to see what he thought about the Holocaust.

On page 586 of his The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony states that, “In every age, false witness has been extensive because man is a sinner, but in the modern era it has particularly been developed into a refined science….The vicious slanders and libels of Louis XVI, Marie Antoninette, and Napoleon persist in the textbooks to this day….At this point, a distinction must be made. Warfare requires strategic deception, but no false witness concerning the character of the enemy is justifiable….The false witness born during World War II with respect to Germany is especially notable and revealing. The charge is repeatedly made that six million innocent Jews were slain by the Nazis, and the figure – and even larger figures – is now entrenched in the history books. Poncins, in summarizing the studies of the French Socialist, Paul Rassinier, himself a prisoner in Buchenwald, states: ‘Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 and this figure, he tells us, has finally been accepted as valid by the Centre Mondial de Documentation Juive Contemporaine.’”

Regarding Rushdoony’s assertion of “slanders and libels” still appearing in textbooks, it is obvious Rushdoony’s understanding of American law is considerably lacking. First, you cannot libel or slander the dead in America. Secondly, only the term “libel” applies to written defamation of character, which is characterized by provably false statements. However, his assertion that only 1.2 million Jews died (he actually quotes a smaller number, 896, 292, in his text) is deceptive because his source only includes certain European Jews, not the Slavic Jews of Eastern Europe (Poland, etc.) who were murdered en masse, along with the Jews in the former Soviet territories. Additionally, Rushdoony deceives his reader when he raises the specter of Buchenwald. When the Allied military liberated the camps in the West and the East (the primary source of original statistical data), it became apparent there were distinct differences between death camps such as Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka and concentration camps in Germany proper, such as Dachua and Buchenwald (where political prisoners like Rassineir were kept). Considering Rushdoony includes these hateful remarks concerning the Holocaust under a section titled “The Lying Tongue,” it is perplexing that a man who allegedly read more than 20,000 books would not check his facts more thoroughly.

Yet, the real issue is not about facts. Perhaps R.J. Rushdoony made his error because he forgot to check his own deceitful heart – something God’s word says each of has beating in our breasts. Then again, maybe R.J. Rushdoony simply hated Jews. I do not know, since I had no personal interaction with the man. However, this raises another issue. It is one thing to read about history in books and draw conclusions based on ones reading. It is another thing to live the history and see the “facts” before your eyes. This is one of the many benefits of having served in uniform for more than 20 years. I visited the World War II German camps while living in Germany for ten (10) years, and I interviewed survivors of Balkan-style genocide while serving throughout Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia. Interestingly enough, genocide survivors have some unique traits when you speak with them in person – which is something you cannot observe while reading a book.

Ultimately, truth prevails. If R.J. Rushdoony was deceived on the subject of the Holocaust, may God have mercy on his soul; on the other hand, if R.J. Rushdoony deliberately engaged in anti-Semitism, well, we already know what the Bible has to say about those who hate the Jews.