The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

08-Sep-2009

To Hell With the United Nations! Welcome Israel!

Filed under: UNIranian Threat — eidelberg @ 5:56 am Edit This

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 7, 2008.

The United Nations is the most pernicious, malevolent, and corrupt organizations on earth. Israel should quit this den of iniquity.

“Praiseworthy is the man who walked not in the counsel of the wicked, and stood not in the path of the sinful, and sat not in the session of scorners” (Psalms 1:1.)

 

The UN’s Anti-Israel Vendetta

For decades, the United Nations has passed countless resolutions condemning Israel for its actions against the Palestinians, while almost never formally addressing Israel’s security concerns and the ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. The UN General Assembly has become an international forum for promoting Palestinian statehood and delegitimizing Israel.

Before Oslo, the General Assembly either “condemned” or “deplored” or “censured” or “denounced” Israel 321 times(more…)

04-Sep-2009

The Trial

Filed under: Iranian Threat — eidelberg @ 4:15 pm Edit This

The trial - icon    Israel is playing a waiting game. She knows that Iran driven by historical memory, overweening pride, and Allah’s cult of hatred, will strike; but Israel will have the warning time required to strike first—and the Jews, victims of the Holocaust, will indeed strike first. This will be the beginning of a new Middle East, that hardly anyone dreams of. Even before Iran is devastated, the Israel Defense Forces will deliver crippling blows to Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and Syria. Israel will eliminate the entire terrorist network west of the Jordan River. Countless Arabs will flee from Judea and Samaria as well as from Gaza. The peace charade will be over. The mendacity and puerilities of Lilliputian politicians will be silenced. The Lion of Judah will have triumphed.

01-Sep-2009

Connecting the Dots on Netanyahu

Filed under: Oslo/Peace ProcessPoliticians — eidelberg @ 7:20 am Edit This

Benjamin Netanyahu has often been called a clever but unprincipled, indeed, unscrupulous, politician. But his skill as an orator as well as his pleasant demeanor obscures the nature of this political animal—and his oratory sometimes trips him.

Let’s go back to the aftermath of the May 1996 election, when he nosed out Shimon Peres for the premiership by a mere half a percentage point. To both Jewish and Arab audiences he boasted that no one expected him to (1) accept the Oslo Accords as a basis for the “peace process”; (2) meet with Yasser Arafat; and (3) withdraw from Hebron. Ponder the significance of this unwittingly self-incriminating statement or confession. If no one, in his own words, expected him to take the three steps just mentioned, it follows that Mt. Netanyahu betrayed those who elected him Israel’s Prime Minister!

That he can boast before the nation about his utterly unexpected adherence to the Oslo Accords reveals his contempt for public opinion. It also reveals, in addition to his moral obtuseness, Israel’s undemocratic political culture. But this is not all.

Mr. Netanyahu employed the same kind political deception in the February 2009 election. (more…)

24-Aug-2009

Peace Now: The Greatest Enemy of the “Palestinians”

Filed under: Islam & ArabOslo/Peace Process — eidelberg @ 7:28 am Edit This

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, August 24, 2009.

To understand why Peace Now is the greatest enemy of the Arab “Palestinians” (other than their own rulers, we must dare ask: “What is in the best long term interests of these Arabs—indeed, of Muslims in general?” Conversely, what are these disciples of Muhammad most in need of?

First, they need to overcome the monopoly of power of the Arab regime that oppresses them. Accordingly, they need a constitution that limits the powers of government. This requires a division and separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government.

Second, they need to develop a civil society. Crucial for developing a civil society among Islamic regimes is the introduction of a market economy. Such an economy would decentralize the corporate power of the regime, generate a middle class, and raise the living standards of Islam’s poverty-stricken masses. A market economy would hasten the development of civil society by creating private and social institutions to counterbalance the power of government. In other words, civil society requires a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that serve as a buffer between the government and the people.

The NGOs would include a variety of professional associations consisting of scientists, teachers, engineers, doctors, lawyers as well as various groups such as manufacturers, labor unions, political parties, social service agencies, various news media, etc. These organizations can protect private citizens and private groups from discriminatory legislation or abuses of the bureaucracy. But this is not all. (more…)

17-Aug-2009

The American & Anti-American Revolution

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, August 17, 2009.

The monumental significance of the American Revolution is articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration teaches that to merit obedience, the laws enacted by any State must be consistent with the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This “Higher Law” doctrine provides grounds not only for civil disobedience, but even for violent revolution if the acts of the State evince a design toward tyranny. Not the State but God is the ultimate source of authority.

Such is the profundity of the Declaration that it was incorporated in most of the thirteen original state constitutions. Abraham Lincoln regarded the Declaration as the credo of the American people and the political philosophy of the American Constitution. Thus understood, the Constitution is based on certain immutable ethical and political principles. Most fundamental is the primacy of the individual, from which follows the principle of limited government. Limited government requires separation of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This produces institutional checks and balances to prevent majority as well as minority tyranny. The Constitution thus prescribes institutional means to safeguard the individual’s rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It may shock you to learn—but some scholars believe I am the first political scientist to reveal—that the seed of the anti-American revolution was planted by Woodrow Wilson. Influenced by German historical relativism, Wilson rejected the natural rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. Instead of immutable “laws of nature” he posited evolutionary laws of history. He originated the idea that the Constitution must evolve with the changing circumstances of society. The Supreme Court must therefore interpret the Constitution not according to the intentions of its Framers, but according to the progressive opinions of the day—the opinions of the “enlightened” members of society ensconced in academia. (more…)

09-Aug-2009

The Two-State Solution: A Sacrifice of the Intellect

Filed under: Oslo/Peace ProcessPoliticiansMulticulturalism/Moral Relativism — eidelberg @ 5:56 am Edit This

Whatever else one may say of the “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is fascinating example of how intelligent men can sacrifice their intellects to a mantra.

Rather than discuss the mentality of men like Benjamin Netanyahu, let’s go back almost twenty years to Mr. Yossi Sarid, then a leader of the Meretz Party with experience on the important Knesset Committee on Defense and Foreign Affairs.

Anticipating Netanyahu’s current position, Sarid had long advocated negotiations with the PLO and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Hence he was taken aback when Yasser Arafat, along with Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, supported Saddam Hussein’s rape of Kuwait. He was all the more discomfited when Israel’s own Arab citizens applauded the Iraqi dictator.

In view of these politically embarrassing developments, Sarid felt compelled to “reassess” his position. (more…)

05-Aug-2009

From Martin Buber to Michael Oren

What does Martin Buber have in common with Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States?

In response to the Obama administration’s objection to settlements, Mr. Oren is reported to have said: “Settlements are not the issue.” “The issue is the recognition of the mutual legitimacy of these two peoples, the legitimate claim to these two states [the Jewish state and the projected Arab state].”

Underlying the words I have emphasized is a mode of thought that has long influenced the mentality of Israel’s political and intellectual elites: historical or cultural relativism. I discuss the pernicious influence of relativism in my book Israel and the Malaise of Democracy, written shortly after the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993. Here are some key passages:

“Because it cannot transcend [cultural relativism], the government [of Israel] is psychologically incapable of asserting the preeminence of Jewish [over Arab] rights to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Note the subtle influence of relativism [and subjectivism] in this statement of Dr. Eliahu Ben-Elissar, [once] Likud chairman of the Knesset foreign affairs committee: ‘In our eyes we have a right to this land’ (The Jerusalem Post, June 5, 1992, p. 5a, emphasis added).

“We see in Ben-Elissar the shallowness of the Likud’s political Zionism…. (more…)

02-Aug-2009

Iranian, American, and Israeli Grievances: A Question of Revolution

Filed under: Oslo/Peace ProcessPoliticiansIsrael's Nationals — eidelberg @ 7:23 am Edit This

Iran’s fraudulent presidential election of June 12, which kept Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power, was enough to trigger a revolution—not civil disobedience Israeli style. Many Iranians lost their lives in violent protests against the fraud. The revolution is not over. Report has it that even Iranian soldiers are helping opponents of the regime.

“No taxation without representation” was the clarion call of the American revolution of 1776. The Americans were fed up with protests and civil disobedience. Ponder these words of the American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; (more…)

01-Apr-2009

Российская карта: Израиль должен дистанцироваться от Вашингтона

Filed under: US & Global PolicyIranian ThreatРусский — eidelberg @ 11:01 pm Edit This

Перевод Аркадия Гинзбурга. Translation by Arkadiy Ginzburg.

Российская карта:
Израиль должен дистанцироваться от Вашингтона
Пол Эйдельберг

Не может быть сомнения в том, что Барак Хуссейн Обама разыгрывает мусульманскую карту в ущерб Израилю. Его умиротворение Ирана, эпицентра глобального терроризма, особенно тревожно для американцев, равно как и для израильтян. Советники Обамы по Ближнему Востоку общались не только с Хамасом, иранской марионеткой, но также и с Сирией, террористическим государством. Правительство Обамы помогает сейчас палестинской терр��ристической власти основать военную тренировочную базу в Иерихоне. Всё это обосновывает отчёт в газете Israel Today от 19 марта 2009 г. Я цитирую:

Бывший глава официального разведывательного управления США предупреждает, что администрация Обамы близка к тому, чтобы сломать длительную дружбу Америки с Израилем и, возможно, даже предпринять шаги к ликвидации государства Израиль. Говоря на условиях анонимности с Дугласом Хагманном из северо-восточной разведывательной сети, этот источник сказал: «Администрация Обамы… готовится предоставить больше поддержки арабским странам путём финансовой и военной помощи, парализуя оборонительные усилия Израиля и толкая Израиль на уступки давлению необоснованных требований, направленных в конечном счёте к его политическому уничтожению как нации».

В статье “Sleeping with the Devil” («Сон вместе с дьяволом») бывший агент ЦРУ Роберт Баэр показывает, что бывшие высокие официальные лица в Вашингтоне в восторге от финансовых сделок с Саудовской Аравией. Саудовцы побуждают США усилить поддержку палестинского государства. Саудовские нефтедол��ары используются на строительстве мечетей и на покупку влияния в американских университетах. Они вбивают клин между Америкой и Израилем, и Обама ускоряет этот процесс. (more…)

11-Jan-2009

Preliminary Notes on the Forthcoming Election

Filed under: Oslo/Peace ProcessPoliticiansNational Election — eidelberg @ 5:53 am Edit This

It is widely agreed that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government decided to inflict a crushing blow on Hamas to restore Fatah-leader Mahmoud Abbas’ control over Gaza—a precondition for fulfilling the triumvirate’s commitment to a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This will obviously be the paramount issue in the February 10 election.

Although right-minded people will want Likud to win more seats than Kadima in that election, it is extremely important that the Likud not win too large a Knesset plurality. Such an outcome would enable the Likud’s questionable leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, to appoint too many Likud MKs to his cabinet, just as Ariel Sharon did after the 2003 elections. This was too many for Israel’s own good.

Right-minded people will therefore want to vote for National Union, which, unlike the Likud, is opposed to any further territorial withdrawal and is unequivocally opposed to a Palestinian state. This non-compromising attitude cannot be ascribed to Netanyahu, whose slogan “reciprocity” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority means yielding more Jewish land to the disciples of Muhammad. Netanyahu’s track record at the Wye Summit and on disengagement from Gaza does not inspire confidence.

To state the matter more simply, Israel will need in its next government a significant number of cabinet ministers who are to the right of Netanyahu and who can block any attempt on his part to betray the nationalist camp, as he has done in the past. (more…)

06-Jan-2009

Even-Handedness Equals Moral Equivalence

Filed under: The MediaMulticulturalism/Moral Relativism — eidelberg @ 5:27 am Edit This

No one should be deceived by the allegedly “even-handed” reporting of the war in Gaza by any media such as FOX News.

Even-handedness between Israel and Hamas is but a euphemism for moral equivalence, since it places a civilized country like Israel on the same level as Hamas, terrorist organization whose Charter unambiguously calls for Israel’s destruction.

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, points out in his book Surrender is Not an Option, that “moral equivalency” permeates the State Department.

To be even more accurate, the policy of the State Department, hence of the United States government, toward Israel and its enemy, the Palestinian Authority, has ever been dominated by moral reversal. (more…)

The Hamas Covenant of Death

Filed under: Islam & ArabIranian Threat — eidelberg @ 5:21 am Edit This

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it …” Thus begins the Hamas Covenant of Death officially known as “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” To grasp the true nature of the war that is being waged against the Jewish State of Israel, and not only by the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, let us examine this Covenant of Death.

In discussing Islam’s war against the Jewish state, the Covenant refers to the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza as but a single “squadron” of the “vast Islamic world.” “Our struggle against the Jews is very great,” and this struggle will go on “until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized.”

The Covenant also refers to the Islamic Resistance Movement as “one of the wings of [the] Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.” It calls upon all Moslems to “raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanness, vileness and evils.” Contrary to the puerilities of the media, the Moslem Brotherhood is not a fanatical sect of Islam; it is Islam authentic and resurgent. (more…)

05-Jan-2009

Muslim Riots

Filed under: Islam & ArabUS & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 9:35 pm Edit This

From Samuel Huntington, Who Are We? (Simon & Schuster, 2004, p. 188):

“Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, seem slow to assimilate compared to other post-1965 groups…. A study of Los Angeles Muslims found ambivalent attitudes toward America: “a significant number of Muslims, particularly immigrant Muslims, do not have close ties or loyalty to the United States.” When asked whether they had “closer ties or loyalty to Islamic countries (perhaps your country of birth) or the United States,” 45 percent of the immigrants said Islamic countries, 10 percent the United States, and 32 percent about the same. Among American-born Muslims, 19 percent chose Islamic countries, 38 percent the United States, and 32 percent about the same. Fifty-seven percent said that “if given the choice, [they] would leave the United States to live in an Islamic country.”

Now for a problem of national interest:

Suppose the United States attacked Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, suppose Israel attacked Iran for the same reason—and it was believed, rightly or wrongly, that the United States had helped Israel.

Could the police or the National Guard quell Muslim riots in any of the major cities of the United States—riots instigated by imams?

04-Jan-2009

Patton Updated

Filed under: Gaza IncursionMilitary Strategy — eidelberg @ 6:22 am Edit This

To Israel’s General Staff: Lessons From A Master of War

Israel’s General Staff would do well to emulate George S. Patton, the general most feared by Nazi Germany.

On the eve of battle, Patton would admonish his soldiers: “The object of war is not to die for your country. It is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his.” This requires confronting and killing the enemy on the battlefield.

“Never let the enemy rest.” No cease fires or hudnas. Unconditional surrender should be Israel’s proclaimed war aim!

“We want the enemy to know that they are fighting the toughest fighting men in the world!” This precludes benevolence (which Arabs despise). Just as Hamas terrorists would show no mercy to you, so you should show no mercy to them. These terrorists must be killed even if this results in civilian casualties.

“Forget about army regulations … [which] are written by those who have never been in battle…Our only mission in combat is to win.” Hence general officers may sometimes have to disobey orders of the political echelon! (more…)

Destroy the Enemy to Obtain One Hundred Years of Peace

Filed under: Gaza IncursionMilitary Strategy — eidelberg @ 5:49 am Edit This

Part I — Epaminondas

“Those who wish to enjoy peace must be ready for war.”

Referring to the democratic reformer Epaminondas, the warrior-philosopher whose Theban army defeated Sparta (370-369), military historian Victor Davis Hanson offers insights that Israeli generals and citizens as well as universities should take most seriously. The excerpts below are taken from Hanson’s The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny (1999):

“I think it is almost axiomatic that if a general of a great democratic march is not hated, is not sacked, tried, or relieved of command by his auditors after his tenure is over, or if he has not been killed [as was Epaminondas] or wounded at the van, he has not utilized the full potential of his men, has not accomplished his strategic goals—in short, he is too representative of the very culture that produced him, too democratic to lead a democratic army …”

“… we of the academic class are sometimes reluctant to equate mastery of military command with sheer intellectual brilliance. But to lead an army of thousands into enemy territory requires mental skills far beyond that of the professor, historian, or journalist—far beyond too the accounting and managerial skill of the deskbound and peacetime officer corps.”

“From Epaminondas’s philosophical training [he was a Pythagorean], the corpus of his adages and sayings that have survived, and his singular idea to take 70,000 men into Laconia and Messinia, it is clear that, like both [William Tecumseh] Sherman and [George S.] Patton, he had a first-class mind and was adept in public speaking and knowledge of human behavior. Perhaps with the exception of Pericles and Scipio, it is hard to find any military leader in some twelve centuries of Gaeco-Roman antiquity who had the natural intelligence, philosophical training, broad knowledge, and recognition of the critical tension between military morale and national ethics as Epaminondas the Theban. In his range of political and strategic thought, he towered over his Greek contemporaries … in precisely the way Sherman did over all the generals of the Civil War, precisely as Patton dwarfed his British and American superiors. (more…)

Only Dead Fish Go With the Stream

Filed under: US & Global PolicyIranian Threat — eidelberg @ 5:24 am Edit This

Comments submitted by Prof. Eidelberg, Dec 30, 2008 on article: Insight into Obama’s Middle East Policy? at DanielPipes.org .

Judging from Daniel Pipes’ lucid critique of the Bush administration’s failings in the Middle East, the Brookings/CFR study, Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President, seems to be following the same path with respect to Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Its co-authors, Richard Haass and Martin Indyk seem wedded to the tried and ineffectual path of negotiating with despotic regimes. They ignore the global ambitions of Iranian President Ahmadinejad—basically a disciple of the Ayatollah Khomeini. They virtually ignore the geo-strategic dimensions of the Iranian threat. Iran is not only the epicenter of international terrorism. Of immediate concern is Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and its present ability to turn the spigot off the oil flowing through the Persian Gulf.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s incantation “death to America” is not merely a metaphor. Nor should the next president downplay Ahmadinejad’s vow to wipe Israel off the map—something Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority has already done in its maps of the Middle East. (more…)

Yaalon’s Plan

Filed under: Oslo/Peace ProcessPoliticians — eidelberg @ 4:37 am Edit This

A Brief Lesson in Political Logic

A question has arisen regarding my December 29 critique of the Yaalon Plan on Israel National Radio. That plan, recall, is based on General Yaalon’s policy paper “Israel and the Palestinians: A New Strategy.”

Yaalon opposes the Oslo Agreement because its architects favor withdrawal from Judea and Samaria before the Palestinians develop the economic, political, and judicial infrastructure required to make the Palestinian Authority a reliable negotiating peace partner with Israel. But this implies that Yaalon is not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state—to put it in negative terms.

It may therefore be logically assumed that anyone who understands and endorses the Yaalon plan is not opposed in principle to a Palestinian state.

In contrast, Moshe is opposed in principle to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria for religious reasons. (more…)

02-Jan-2009

Pipes on Bush et al.

Filed under: US & Global Policy — eidelberg @ 8:22 am Edit This

Daniel Pipes has written an excellent critique of the Bush administration, as well as of the liberal mindset of the Brookings Institute/Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) study, Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President. This study bodes ill for both America and Israel.

View article by Daniel Pipes.

Sun Tzu

Filed under: Foreign PolicyGaza Incursion — eidelberg @ 7:35 am Edit This

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written about 500 B.C.E., is the oldest military treatise in the world. Even now, after twenty-five centuries, the basic principles of that treatise remain a valuable guide for the conduct of war. Indeed, Sun Tzu may be of interest to the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, in view of the Arab Terrorist War that erupted in September 2000. Since then more than 1,600 Jews have been murdered and many thousands more have been wounded and maimed by Arab terrorists.

Referring to the IDF’s limited response to this Arab terrorism, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said, “self-restraint is strength”! At first glance one might suspect that Mr. Sharon had been influence by Mother Theresa. It may well be, however, that he derived that dictum from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War—or rather, from a misreading of that treatise. Sun Tzu would have an army general exhibit, at first, “the coyness of a maiden”—to draw out the enemy—but thereafter he would have him emulate the fierceness of a lion.

Of course, when the forces of the enemy exceed your own or occupy superior ground, then self-restraint is prudence. But when this situation is reversed, self-restraint is weakness. In fact, Sun Tzu goes so far as to say, “If fighting is reasonably sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbids it.

In referring to various ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army and his people, Sun Tzu cautions a ruler against “attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom.” (more…)

To Israel’s General Staff: Lessons From A Master of War

Filed under: Gaza IncursionMilitary Strategy — eidelberg @ 7:28 am Edit This

Israel is at war. Israel’s General Staff would do well to emulate George S. Patton, the general most feared by Nazi Germany.

On the eve of battle, Patton would admonish his soldiers: “The object of war is not to die for your country. It is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his.” This requires confronting and killing the enemy on the battlefield.

“Never let the enemy rest.” No cease-fires or hudnas. Unconditional surrender should be Israel’s proclaimed war aim!

“We want the enemy to know that they are fighting the toughest fighting men in the world!” This precludes benevolence (which Arabs despise). Just as Hezbollah warriors would show no mercy to you, so you should show no mercy to them. These warriors must be killed even if this results in civilian casualties. (more…)

      — Next Page »