The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

1.  America is threatened by two enemies: one internal, the other external. America needs a non-governmental organization consisting of the finest minds to formulate and implement a comprehensive strategy to overcome these two enemies.

2.  The internal enemy is the university-bred doctrine of moral relativism also known as multiculturalism. Relativism is demoralizing the American people; it is eroding their heritage, their sense of national pride and purpose. Relativism permeates every level of American education. It infects the news and entertainment media. It influences all three branches of American Government. It therefore corrupts the opinion-makers and policy-makers of the United States. (This same doctrine has emasculated England and Europe.)

3.  America’s external enemy is Islamic imperialism. This enemy has two power centers: Iran and Saudi Arabia, the former involves Shi’ite Islam, the latter Sunni Islam. These two countries control most of the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf—the energy sources on which the American and the world economy largely depends. Petrodollars have built thousands of mosques in the United States and Europe. These mosques propagate ideas and values subversive of civilization: respect for human life and individual freedom as well as humane desire to resolve differences through speech and moral suasion as opposed to force and violence.

4.  We cannot expect the Government of the United States to initiate and pursue the policies required to overcome its internal and external enemies, if only because the Government has been corrupted by moral relativism. (more…)

A day after 9/11, the present writer pondered the problem of how to deal with Islamic Jihad. Here is a brief scenario.

The President calls in the ambassadors of every Islamic country. He hands them the draft of a message and instructs them to send to it the heads of their respective states. The message reads something like this:

The President of the United States requests that you assemble your religious leaders and inform them that, unless they publicly renounce the ethos of Jihad and abrogate Islamic verses referring to non-Muslims as subhuman, the United States will take the following actions:

1. The American ambassador to your country will be recalled. (more…)

I have been saying this since 9/11, but will say it once more in view of the Mumbai massacre. We need an awesome victory over Islam, lest there be no end of Mumbais.

Islam has cowed Europe. It will cow America, the last hope of civilization.

Few people really understand why Israel, despite its superior military forces, is retreating to her precarious 1949 armistice lines. Before discussing this strange phenomenon, let us review the stages of Israel’s shrinkage or capitulation.

The first shrinkage of Israel was made by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the Camp David Agreement of September 1978. Begin, a vaunted nationalist, signed away the Sinai to Egypt, a military dictatorship. He also compromised retention of Judea and Samaria by referring to their Arab inhabitants as a “people”—in fact rival Arab clans from diverse countries of the Middle East. Begin ignored this fact, in consequence of which Israel has become a pariah.

The second shrinkage of Israel was made by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993. Contrary to his June 1992 election campaign, Rabin virtually surrendered Judea and Samaria to the PLO, a criminal organization cited as such in Israeli law. He even opened negotiations with Syria, a terrorist state, to give away the Golan Heights. Rabin violated his word, reason, as well as the law.

The third shrinkage of Israel was made by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the Wye River Summit of 1998. There he agreed to yield 40 percent of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat, a bloody murderer. (He had already yielded 80 percent of Hebron to that murderer.) (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 24, 2008.

Shortly after his election as Prime Minister in May 1996, Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the United States Congress. There he denied any clash of civilizations between Israel and its Arab-Islamic neighbors. This denial—disingenuous or not—underlies Netanyahu’s current economic plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By building up the Palestinian economy, which of course will be partly dependent on Israel, peace between Jews and Arabs will eventually follow. Netanyahu has joined Shimon Peres, author of The New Middle East.

Before examining the mode thought of these odd bedfellows, note that Netanyahu and Peres are secularists. I mention this because Abdallah al-Tall, an Egyptian spokesman, has said that “The propagandists of secularism, who leave out of account the religious factor in the Palestine problem, ignore the fact that this is the only bone of contention in the world which has persisted for thirty centuries and is still based on religious and spiritual foundations.”

According to the “propagandists of secularism,” economics trumps religion. This, of course, is indicative of a Marxist mode of thought. This mode thought, we shall see, also underlies capitalism, and that’s what links Bibi to Shimon, the author of the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement which Bibi refused to abrogate. Both are wedded to Oslo. (more…)

To grasp the world-historical significance of the conflict between Israel and democratic nations now allied with Arab despots, one must identify the great question that has confronted the architects of Western thought since the 16th century: the G-d question.

It was this question that preoccupied the fathers of the secular state: Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Marx. It was they who undermined the Biblical tradition and removed religion from the domain of truth. These were the real legislators of the contemporary mind. It was they who educated the educators who now dominate the colleges and universities of the democratic world.

These political philosophers provided the ideological foundations for the separation of religious and public law. It was their mode of thought that permeated the political Zionists who established the secular State of Israel. And now their post-Zionist descendants, under U.S. auspices, are exchanging the Land of Israel to the Arabs for the pottage of “peace.”

Meanwhile, Israel’s secular nationalists, in the Likud, for example. are powerless to prevent this insane treachery, for they, too, have been emasculated by a spiritually vacuous, territorial Zionism. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 10, 2008.

Contrary to the governments of the United States and Israel, various experts in both countries reject the “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I shall mention their views while developing five decisive arguments against a Palestinian state: Economic, Demographic, Political, Strategic, and Democratic. Let’s begin with the—

1.  Economic Arguments

a.  A RAND study indicates that a Palestinian state would not be economically viable. It would require $33 billion for the first ten years of its existence—and this study was made before the economic crisis now confronting the United States and entire world.

b.  Besides, to confine more than two million Arabs to the 2,323 square miles of the so-called West Bank, and to squeeze another million into the 141 square miles of Gaza, is to doom these Arabs to economic stagnation and discontent. The projected state would be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by the leaders of one or another group of Arab clans or thugs parading under the banner of Allah.

c.  Moreover, to compensate perhaps 200,000 Jews expelled from the “West Bank”—or even half that number—would bankrupt Israel’s government, to say nothing of the resulting trauma and civil discord. (more…)

ET came from subterranean Mars. He landed unseen near the Lincoln Memorial. Read the Gettysburg Address … “Four score and seven years ago …” Went to the Library of Congress. Studied American history to the present day. Saw that America had lost its way, no longer the home of the free and the land of the brave. Saw that cretins and cravens had gained political ascendancy.

Stupefied by “higher education,” Americans were oblivious of their internal enemies. Nor did they know of their most dangerous external enemy—Iran-centered Shia Islam, spreading into Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank. Iran, positioned to turn the spigot off the oil flowing through the Strait Hormuz and thus collapse the West without nuclear weapons. Iran, whose Revolutionary Guard, Shia warriors, spearhead the new Persian Empire. Dedicated—not fanatics like Osama bin Laden—but Machiavellians experienced in asymmetrical warfare, the same that trashed Israel in Lebanon,

ET went to the Middle East. He saw that Shia Iran, which could field one million warriors and control more than 50 percent of the world’s black gold, was too clever, too disciplined, too quiet, too patient, too animated by imperial ambitions to concern itself any longer with suicide bombings.

Quietly it proceeded to convert Sunni Muslims to its cause. Quietly it accumulated more proxies. Quietly, with one fait accomplis after another, it gained more recruits, control of more sources of energy vis-à-vis Israel and the United States—two nations whose massive military power in the hands of secularists was nothing compared to the growing and increasingly sophisticated religio-military power of Shia Islam. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, October 27, 2008.

The question raised in the title is intended to stimulate thought. For this purpose, I will cite some passages from Ralph Peters, Beyond Terror (2002), and intersperse them with statements by presidents of the United States and comments of my own.

Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. army colonel who served in the Executive Office of the President and is troubled by American foreign policy. He writes:

The diplomats and decisonmakers of the United States believe, habitually and uncritically, that stability is our most important strategic objective. They may insist … that democracy and human rights are our international priorities—although our policy makers do not seem to understand the requirements of the first and refuse to meet the requirements of the second. (p. 167, emphasis added).

Concern for regime stability has trumped concern for the spread of democracy since the first administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, when Roosevelt extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. By so doing, he abandoned the policy of his four predecessors, who scorned the Bolshevik regime—its contempt for democratic values and international law. (more…)

What Israelis and Americans should know about the cravens and cretins who rule their countries:

1. Your enormous military power is zero since your enemy does not believe you will use it.

2. Your power is nothing if you do not strike fear in your enemy. It has rightly been said that ferocity is the ultimate guarantor of peace.

3. Since this is beyond your leaders, Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thumb their noses on the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

4. How they will dance in joy when a fellow-Muslim enters the White House and converts it into a giant mosque!

5. Imagine his first “state of the union message,” when he tells his “fellow Americans” the Sharia “supplement” the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. (more…)

1.   The only way to win the war on terror (or on what is called “Islamism”) is to terrorize the terrorists.

2.   To refrain from doing so because Islamic terrorists do not fear death is a strategic error.

3.   There are two ways of making them fear death. One is their witnessing unceasing attacks and annihilation of Islamic terrorists; the other is their witnessing the destruction of the visible symbols of their deity.

4.   Of course, the West is incapable of this kind of offensive warfare. Humanism or liberalism, tolerance and multiculturalism, preclude such ruthlessness. Sending our enemies to paradise is too much for self-righteous liberals or compassionate conservatives. Which is why the former abhorred, while the latter gradually deserted, the Bush Doctrine, by which I mean the following: (more…)

Senator Barack Obama personifies an American identity crisis, a crisis also evident among the nations of Europe (to say nothing of Israel).

In Obama we behold a man whose origin and religious faith are mysterious, a man whose patriotism has been placed in question. I do not mention this to disparage Senator Obama, but rather to indicate that America itself and its future have become fearfully problematic.

Professor Samuel Huntington, an eminent political scientist, recently wrote a book entitled Who Are We? The title is both fitting and ironic. Huntington sees in America the ascendancy of multiculturalism, which cannot but erode any clear sense of national identity among American citizens. But Huntington himself is steeped in multiculturalism, since he is a cultural relativist—a far throw from his ancestor, the Samuel Huntington who signed America’s Declaration of Independence.

As a cultural relativist, Huntington cannot affirm “the self-evident truths” affirmed in that Declaration, the truths which America’s Founding Fathers derived from “laws of nature and nature’s God.” Such truths transcend space and time. They transcend “culture” and reject cultural relativism. (more…)

Revisionist historians aside, or those who do not understand Lincoln’s statesmanship, the Civil War that broke out in America after the 1860 election was over the slavery issue. Stated more precisely, the issue was whether slavery was to be extended to the territories of the United States. At issue, along with slavery, was the Declaration of Independence and its fundamental principle of moral equality.

Lincoln understood that if slavery were extended to the territories, slave states would eventually outnumber free states, in consequence of which, the slave states could readily amend the Constitution and extend slavery to the free states. Of course, the exact opposite would happen if the territories became free states. Lincoln steadfastly opposed the extension of slavery, and this meant civil war. So it was yesterday.

Today, however, the government of the United States, with the servile compliance of the government of Israel, wants to extend slavery via a Palestinian state into the territory called the “West Bank.” I say “slavery” because a Palestinian state would be nothing less than a tyranny, and that means human servitude.

Out of ignorance or interest, the candidates in the U.S. presidential campaign have endorsed a Palestinian state even though reason and experience demonstrate that such a state would be ruled by Arab despots and thereby lead to Israel’s demise. Forgotten are the basic principles of the American Declaration of Independence. (more…)

The Palestinian Authority, a consortium of terrorist groups that bow to Mecca, has indoctrinated a generation of Arab children to hate Jews and Israel and to emulate suicide bombers. Even before they reach the age of ten, Arab children receive military training. Indeed, their games, their sports, their story books—and of course of their prayers—are designed to reinforce genocidal hatred of Jews and the Jewish State. This being the case—and much more can be said of the pervasiveness of this Islamic indoctrination—I ask the following question: “What would it take, and how long would it take, to undo this deeply engrained hatred?”

Unless this question is faced honestly, one cannot begin to offer any rational or realistic “solution” to the 100-year war that Muslim Arabs have been waging against Jews and Israel. Indeed, I dare say that unless one can answer that question honestly, one does not even have a right to propose any “solution.” Hence, what I see among countless pundits and politicians who speak of a “two state” solution to this conflict is not only the arrogance of ignorance, but a failure to take Islam seriously—an insult to Muslims!

The Torah urges us to seek justice. However, before one can talk intelligently about “justice” from a Western perspective, one has to understand what “justice” requires from an Islamic perspective. In fact, one has to understand the role of speech or reason in the Jewish tradition vis-à-vis the role of speech or reason in the Islamic tradition. Eventually one will have to understand the difference between Jewish monotheism and Islamic monotheism, and few indeed are qualified to enter this domain of knowledge. (more…)

1.  The people of Israel have been mesmerized by the Oslo or Israel-PLO agreement, or what the Prophet Isaiah calls a “covenant of death.” Stated another way, Israel’s government has been paralyzed by the mendacious and suicidal policy of land-for-peace. No matter how much criticism is written about the Oslo Agreement, and no matter how many times the Palestinian Authority violates this agreement, the government, regardless of which party is at the helm, continues to surrender Jewish land to our sworn enemies who teach their children to be suicide bombers.

2.  So, the question is: what can be done to derail the Oslo train, the train that is leading Israel to what Abba Even called the Auschwitz lines?

3.  Here is what I recommend as a political scientist. When you can’t beat the enemy by the direct approach, by simply attacking Oslo, you try the indirect approach. You raise a controversial issue that will grab public attention and distract the government from its lethal Oslovian policy. I recommend that you raise the issue of sedition committed by Arab Knesset members, especially their violation of the Party Law that prohibits any party that negates the Jewish character of the State. (more…)

Former CIA covert operative Robert Baer asserts that Iran, an Islamic nation of 70 million people, is building an empire in the Middle East, believing it should be the “citadel of Islam.” He warns that Iran is probably months away from war with Israel. That’s the message of his new book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.”

Baer argues that Iran so situated that it may have more ability to alter America’s destiny than China or Russia. “With Chinese Silkworm missiles pointed toward the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has the ability to cripple the world economy in a matter of minutes by shutting down the flow of oil. That’s even before it gains a nuclear missile.”

Apparently, Baer regards Iran not as a messianic terror group such as al-Qaida, but as a nation with imperial aspirations like the former Soviet Union. “Historic compulsions inspire Iran’s leaders to re-create a Persian empire throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.”

This is dangerously misleading. Islam has always been a messianic terrorist entity with imperial aspirations. In his superb book Islamic Imperialism, Efraim Karsh documents Islam’s world-historic aspirations as follows: (more…)

Urgent: An unsolicited message.

I have read scores of books on Islam, including several by Bernard Lewis, the dean of Islamic scholarship, but none has so deeply impressed me as Brigitte Gabriel’s They Must Be Stopped (September 2008). This gallant Lebanese-born and now American author and lecturer has an extraordinary mission: to save America and the cherished values of the Judeo-Christian tradition. You can help Brigitte in this mission by reading and promoting her book. Make sure your local bookstores have a goodly supply of this spellbinding book. Recommend it to your PTA and all other organizations to which you belong.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President
Foundation for Constitutional Democracy
Jerusalem

A. Introduction

1. Israel is confronted by implacable foes. This is not well understood or acknowledged by many who profess support for Israel, most importantly, the President of the United States. By advocating a Palestinian state, Mr. Bush reveals that he—like countless others, including Jews—does not understand the nature of Islam, He foolishly calls Islam “a religion of peace,” even though it is obviously a religion of war, a religion whose believers have slaughtered some 270 million people since Muhammad. War or jihad has been the driving force of Islam for fourteen centuries. Islam is inherently implacable. This makes Islam an enemy of civilization as brilliantly articulated in Lee Harris, Civilization and its Enemies (2004).

2. As an implacable foe, Islam is animated by a hatred that can only be described as demonic—a hatred that cannot be assuaged, a hatred rooted in satanic evil. It is this hatred that impels Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to vow, again and again, to wipe Israel off the map. Such, however, is the moral decline of Western civilization, that the supposedly religious President of the United States allows this despot to enter the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave to address the United Nations.

3. Note the irony: the religious toleration for the most intolerant of religions in a country that excludes the Ten Commandments as well as the Menorah from the public sphere. (more…)

Brigitte Gabriel, Because They Hate

Reviewed by Paul Eidelberg

Those who admired the courage and wisdom of Oriana Fallaci, will be enchanted by Brigitte Gabriel, who risks her life by exposing the hateful nature of Islam. One can only compare Gabriel’s candor with that of Robert Spencer in The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (2006).

Brigitte Gabriel, who now lives and works as a writer in the United States, is a Lebanese-born Maronite Christian. As a child and as a teenager, she lived through the trauma of Lebanon’s civil war and the PLO’s brutal occupation of southern region from which the Palestinians launched terrorist attacks on Israel.

Like all Christians and Muslims in Lebanon, she had been immersed in a constant steam of Jew-hatred and anti-Israel propaganda. Then, in 1982, Brigitte Gabriel underwent a psychological metamorphosis as a result of Israel’s expulsion of the PLO from her country. What happened was this: Brigitte’s mother had been wounded. Unable to get help in a local hospital, Brigitte asked an Israeli for help. An Israeli ambulance was commandeered and took Brigitte and her mother to an Israeli hospital in Safed. It was her first trip to Israel.

When she arrived at the hospital, she was amazed: (more…)

Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It

Reviewed by Paul Eidelberg

Internationally renowned journalist Mark Steyn is famous for his abrasive yet delightful wit. One wonders, however, how a book subtitled The End of the World as We Know It   can make delightful reading. Perhaps because Steyn’s wit conveys “politically incorrect” truths obscured by timid and shallow pundits.

Like Oriana Fallaci, Steyn not only exposes Islamic imperialism, but also the moral confusion or cowardice of western elites—think of George bush and Barack Obama—who cuddle up to Islam or obscure its bellicose and hateful nature. Steyn quotes Bernard Lewis, the dean of Islamic scholars:

“In 1940, we knew who we were, we knew who the enemy was, we knew the dangers and the issues…. It is different today. We don’t know who we are. We don’t know the issues, and we still do not understand the nature of the enemy.”

America Alone is an urgently needed wake up call. Steyn warns America about what is happening to its NATO allies:    (1) An aging and declining European population has necessitated the importation of foreign workers, primarily Muslim Arabs from North Africa.    (2) Since these Muslims refuse to integrate, they constitute a hostile and prolific population that threatens to inundate the Continent. (more…)