War Is the Answer


For the last hundred years the best and brightest of the civilized world have been engaged in the business of peace. In the days before the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke, it was expected that scientific progress would lead to moral progress. Nations would accept international laws and everyone would get together to replace wars with international conferences.

Instead technological progress just gave us better ways to kill each other. There have been few innovations in the moral technology of global harmony since Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” laid out a plan to grant world citizenship to all refugees and outlaw all armies, invasions and atrocities with the whole shebang would be overseen by a League of Nations.

That was in 1795 and Kant’s plan was at least more reasonable than anything we have two-hundred years later today because it at least set out to limit membership in this body to free republics. If we had done that with the United Nations, it could conceivably have become something resembling a humane organization. Instead it’s a place where the dictators of the world stop by to give speeches about human rights for a show that’s funnier than anything you could find eight blocks away at the Broadway Comedy Club.

Since the League of Nations folded, the warring peoples of the world have added the atom bomb, the suicide bomber, the jet plane, the remotely guided missile, the rape squad, the IED, the child soldier and the stealth fighter to their arsenals. And the humanitarians have murdered a few billion trees printing out more useless treaties, conventions and condemnations; more dead trees than accounted for by every piece of human literature written until the 19th Century.

There is no moral technology to prevent war. Or rather war is the moral technology, that when properly applied, ensures peace.

The humanitarians had gone down a dead end by trying to create perpetual peace by outlawing war, but the peace-shouters who wear their inverted Mercedes Logo don’t really want peace, some of them reflexively hate war for sentimental reasons, but their leaders and most committed activists don’t hate war, they hate the people who win the wars.

The plan for perpetual peace is really a plan for perpetual war. It necessitates that the civilized nations who heed its call amass overwhelming quantities of firepower as deterrents against war, which they will pledge to never use because if the threat of destroying the world isn’t enough, their bluff will be called and they will fold. And if they don’t fold, then the world will be destroyed because the humanitarians said that peace was better than war.

It also necessitates that the actual wars that they fight be as limited as possible by applying precision technology to kill only actual armed enemy combatants while minimizing collateral damage. And that humanitarian objective also necessitates that the other side reply with a counter-objective of making it as hard as possible to kill them without also killing civilians.

The humanitarian impulse makes the anti-humanitarian impulse inevitable. The more precisely we try to kill terrorists, the more ingeniously the terrorists blend into the civilian population and employ human shields. The more we try not to kill civilians, the more civilians we are forced to kill. That is the equal and opposite reaction of the humanitarian formula.

In Afghanistan, the Rules of Engagement were overhauled to minimize Afghan civilian casualties. This was so successful that not only did the casualty rate for American soldiers dramatically increase because they were not allowed to fire unless they were being fired at, but the number of Afghan civilian casualties killed by American forces also fell dramatically. It was a great triumph. But sadly the number of Afghan civilians killed by the Taliban increased dramatically and more than made up for the shortfall.

When the Taliban have won the war, the number of civilian casualties will be tremendous once Obama pulls the troops out and the cheerful bearded boys march into Kabul and start killing every woman who can read. But it was still a better thing than the unacceptable levels of civilian casualties under Bush. It was a better thing that the Taliban have free reign to kill as many Afghans as they want than that American soldiers should have been able to fight the Taliban without the humanitarian handcuffs.

Because sometimes you have to destroy the village to save the village, and that is true whether it’s American planes bombing a terrorist hideout or humanitarians letting the Taliban take the village and kill every tenth woman in it.

And yet for all this monumental effort, for all the soldiers dead because they weren’t sure if the man planting an IED in the road was a terrorist or just a decent upstanding poppy farmer checking the soil composition, for all the Afghan civilians killed by the moral technology of inaction, your unfriendly neighborhood  peace-shouter is about as satisfied as a cannibal at a vegan banquet. Give him, her or it five valuable minutes of your time and it will begin shrieking about drone strikes, kill lists and the murderous rampage of a technology that is as far from Shock and Awe as you could possibly imagine without going completely Gandhi. If anything it hates drone strikes more than it hates Hiroshima. Mass killing justifies its smug contempt for the machinery of war, but anything that smacks of an attempt to moralize warfare challenges its principles and urges it on to greater displays of outrage.

Israel, in the name of peace, turned over the lives of millions of people to the control of a terrorist organization which taught their children to believe that their highest purpose in life was to die while killing Israelis.

The Oslo Accords turned stone-throwers into shooters and suicide bombers. It allowed the kind of people that most of Israel’s Muslim neighbors had locked up and thrown away the key to, inside the country and gave them charge of the economy and the youth. Every peace dove, every peace song, every peace agreement, made the rivers of blood that followed not only inevitable, but mandatory.

For decades, every time that Israel was on the verge of finishing off the terrorists, there came a call for a ceasefire or a peace agreement. The call was heeded and the violence continued because all the peace agreements and ceasefires were just prolonged unfinished wars. They were a game of baseball that never ended because no home run was ever scored. Instead the New York Yankees were being forced to play the Martyrs of Muslimtown for thirty years with the umpire stepping in every time the hometown team was on the verge of winning the game. Each peace agreement did not mean peace, it meant that the Muslimtown Martyrs would have another few years to go on killing and being killed.

Peace meant that the war would never end. Instead of perpetual peace, it made for perpetual war.

In 1992 Israel deported 400 Hamas terrorists. It didn’t kill them, lock them up or bake them into a pie. All it did was kick them out of a country they didn’t recognize and closed the door behind them. That deportation became the leading human rights cause of the day. The UN issued a unanimous resolution condemning the deportation. The Red Cross brought them blankets. Newsweek accused Israel of “Deporting the Hope for Peace.”

And so Israel took the 400 Hamas terrorists, the hope for peace, back. Over the next 20 years they shed rivers of blood and rivers of blood were shed because of them. There was never any peace with them and they made peace impossible.

But the humanitarians had gotten their way, as they always got their way, and their way was the blown up bus and the shattered cafeteria, the burning building and the suicide bomber making his way through a crowded mall, the child’s mother lovingly tying on his martyr costume complete with Alfred Nobel’s great invention, the jet plane releasing its cargo of bombs and the television screaming for war. But all these were far better than that 400 Hamas terrorists should sniffle into their Red Cross supplied cups of dark coffee on the hills of Lebanon.

To those who croon to that old Lennon song, peace is always better than war, and good intentions lead to good results. The only way forward is to keep extending your hand to the enemy and doing it over and over again no matter how much effort the doctors have to put into stitching it back together again after the last handshake.

Peace is still better than war. It is better that Israel and Hamas fight escalating mini-wars every 3 years than that Israel finish off Hamas once and for all. That price wasn’t worth paying 20 years ago when all it meant was that 400 terrorists would have been forced to get jobs slinging Halal hash in Lebanese Hashish joints. It certainly isn’t worth it today.

A flock of peace doves wings to Israel with proposals for engaging Hamas. But it’s Israel that is supposed to figure out a way to live with its explosive bride. All the proposals call for some gradual process by which Hamas will be courted, engaged and weaned off terror to become an upstanding member of the international community. And that’s all well and good if you have soy for brains.

Hamas is not interested in being engaged. Its goal is the destruction of Israel. This isn’t posturing, it’s not sullen resentment over being blockaded by Israel or outrage over the latest round of fighting. This is the essential ideology of Hamas, derived from the core Islamic principles over the proper role of non-Muslims in the Muslim world. It is not interested in a two-state solution, job creation programs or any of the meaningless shiny toys that diplomats wave when they arrive in the region. Its goal is to make Islam supreme over all other systems by destroying a non-Muslim state in what it considers to be Muslim territory.

Perpetual peace was not made for such conflicts. Peace was made for reasonable people who are willing to give and take. It was not made for those who only take.

Peacemaking is not a policy, it is a religion that we are all obligated to believe in. It is an immoral moral principle that ends in war. Peacemaking in the World War II cost more lives than Hitler could have ever taken on his own. Peacemaking in the War on Terror has cost a hundred times more lives than the terrorists could have ever taken on their own.

The business of peace is the industry of death. Behind the peace sign is a field of flowers with a grave for every one. Behind the peace agreement and the ceasefire is another war that will be worse than the last.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • John

    There is no substitute for victory , and no peace with out it . Diplomacy that drags on and on kills far more and it only extends life to evil .

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

      And this is precisely why Israel's struggle against genocidal Arabs is at a stalemate. VICTORY has been replaced by 'restraint. Insanity rules the leadership's roost. And unlike the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973, Israel's leaders adopted a new 'war' strategy. Few know that it exists, other than many – though not all – in Israel.

      In Orwellian fashion, the IDF adopted 'havlaga', translated as 'restraint is strength'. So, a leftist prof (what a shock) Ava Kasher designed this 'modern' army concept, thus convincing the populace that to win a war one must be restrained. Now, only in Alice-in-Wonderland is this a possibility, but no matter. The poohbahs are taking the 'high' (im)moral road.

      And the fact of the matter is that people believe that a right wing Israeli gov't is a militant one. Nonsense. It is just window dressing. It matters not a whit who is in charge, left or right. Because Israel's dysfunctional electoral process eschews the majority popular will – http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_parado

      And 'havlaga' will be the death of us, just as it would have been if the US, in both world wars, had adopted it. No sirree. They bombed their enemies into oblivion!

      See evidence of 'havlaga's destruction here <a href="http://-http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/06/30/israels-failure-of-leadership-its-lack-of-statesmen-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/” target=”_blank”>-http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/06/30/israels-failure-of-leadership-its-lack-of-statesmen-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ – here too – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/06/22/no-crime-with

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://www.adinakutnicki.com/about/

      • DaveS

        November 6 was a bad day for Israel and a superb day for Hamas. The White House and Hamas are similar in that both are criminal enterprises.

      • PaulRevereNow

        We have the same problem here in the U.S.; it comes from different sources, i.e. Republican lack of leadership & lack of will; e.t. all.

        • Smitty

          Why sequester Republicans? Obama has done more to further the conflicts with Muslims and other despot countries by his incessant and failed quests for "negotiation" and "peace talks" with those totalitarian leaders who consider him weak and one not to be taken seriously. Yes, the Republicans lack leadership and "will," but only because if they exercise these, they would lose even more votes. So much for "compromise."

          • PaulRevereNow

            Because the Republican have failed to live up to their responsibility. When I received a telephone call, from a get-out-the-vote organization, a few days after the election, the area director and his assistant were talking to a bunch of us volunteers, about how Obama is
            a "special person," and a "special candidate" because he "mobilized his base." Horse manure.
            Obama won, and Romney lost, because Republicans won't fight voter fraud; which gets worse as a result. Your last sentence, "…but only because if they exercise these, they would lose even more votes.." is not only wrong, its exactly what Mr. Greenfield is railing against. In this case, he's against the lack-of-willpower cease fire; I'm against the lack-of-willpower Republicans. I hung up after a few minutes of their nonsense.

    • Gnarly Steve

      There's a line from a remake of the "The Fly" with Jef Goldblum that sums it all up: "Have you ever heard of 'Insect Politics'? Insects don't have politics…they're single-minded and brutal." With Islamists, we are dealing with HUMAN INSECTS…..they are as mindless as cockroaches or ants…and deserve to be dealt with in much the same way.

    • john in cheshire

      just as with politicians, we the people have given diplomats too much power. Both politicians and diplomats are our servants; there to advise. It is for us to decide what happens; particularly when our borders are threatened by the heathn hordes.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/Platform.htm Alexander Gofen

    What a brilliant article! Near every paragraph of it is worth of being emphasized in big print!

    Since the 1968 Eric Hoffer's famous essay: http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-047-Is

    "The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews… Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world."

    the things got only worse. Why? Because now the "inverted Mercedes logo" of appeasement became the paradigm of the former "other nations" (i.e. the big players) too. They all now celebrate capitulation to islam thus being very irritated with Israel: We do it, why does Israel lag behind?..

    As to "Nations accepting international laws and everyone getting together to replace wars with international conferences", this dream or prophecy was known much earlier than the "scientific progress" had evolved, and it was called the Kingdom of God. However the contemporary humanity is sinning so much, that it is farther from this dream than ever before…

  • Judenlieber

    It's about time that somebody said it!!!

  • jakespoon

    Hard to make peace with people(I use that word loosely) whose sole stated purpose in life is to either convert you to their perverted faith,or kill you. Would you believe them when they said "We didn't mean it. We really don't want to exterminate all of you". Fools if you do.

  • mc grath

    well said and well put.
    I was debating in the pub the other night and the other fellow said 'let them all grow flowers'. 'Thats all very fine' I replied ' so long as you know the other side are growing flowers and not stockpiling rockets and weapons to take you out…and lethal if you have only been growing flowers..'

  • Skyreth

    True peace would require both sides to want it. And that peace will always be better than any war. It is better not to compare peace to war, but rather peace to conflict. Peace would mean there is no conflict from either side, however if a side still had conflict in it's heart, then there would not be any peace.

    That being said, one should never make excuses for the actions of others. Destroying the village to "save it" makes you no different to those who would destroy it for any other reason.

    • FPF

      It's very dangerous telling half of the truth. True peace would require both sides to want to coexist peacefully. When one side's definition of peace is to eliminating the other side, and the other side's definition of peace is to coexist, then there is really no true peace.

      • Skyreth

        It seems humanity is hell-bent on creating reasons to exterminate ourselves then.

        • Mary Sue

          well some, anyway. The other side to that hasn't got much of a choice.

      • Skyreth

        It seems humanity is hell-bent on creating reasons to exterminate ourselves then.

    • jacob

      Sorry but it took the radical demolition of Nazi Germany to restore democracy there, which has
      been holding somehow until now and likewise the nuclear bombing of such a fanatic country
      as Japan was before WWII…

      Therefore, regardless of what eggheads and pseudointellectuals may preach, there is no
      substitute YET for radical surgery…
      True : you can't kill ideas bur sure as hell eliminate its supporters and…dead dog, end of rabies…
      When SHARON had ARA-RAT and his cutthroats at the Tripoli beach in the 1982 Lebanon war
      between the Israeli armor and the sea, shouldn't have hesitated into mowing them down to
      the last one, instead of bending over to USA and USSR's request to let them ship out to Tunisia,
      to where the scum departed making, like HAMAS right now, the "V" sign for victory….
      And needless to say, the rivers of Israeli blood it brought about ….
      Likewise Israel should have bombed the hell out of Gaza, as indiscriminately as Hamas has
      been bombing Israel for the past 7/8 years and as it did right now, instead of the stupid "pinpoint
      assassinations" of terrorists on their way to fire rockets, which brought nothing but condemnations
      from the Useless Nations and the EU for 'Disproportionate Reaction" when retaliating…
      And now, all the saber rattling form Israeli "leaders", proving to the Muslim world it is just, another
      PAPER TIGER

    • Drakken

      When the other side is completely utterly destroyed, you will then have peace, untill then keep bloody dreaming. The total war concept manual needs to be brushed off and used with a vengeance.

  • Jack_Wisdom

    Incredible article. Mr. Greenfield this article is so poignant and so deep, so penetrating with paradoxes that the mentally sick libs could never begin to comprehend (ivy league degrees notwithstanding), I am just confounded and thankful to read this article.

  • Steve D

    I say just let the two sides have at it. Best civilization wins.

  • FPF

    That's right Daniel, war will probably be the final and only way to achieve peace among totalitarian ideologists, appeasement will only achieve the state of slavery under totalitarian ideologists.

  • PaulRevereNow

    Israel doesn't want war; but the Obama administration doesn't understand "Peace through strength," that is, peace can be achieved by being prepared for war. In the current situation, I'm reminded of a YouTube video, where Glenn Beck is interviewing Bibi Netanyahu. The P.M. tells Beck that the concept of mutual deterrence maintaining peace is obsolete when fighting terrorists. Sad and terrible, but Greenfield is right. War is the answer to the problem. The only way to achieve a true and lasting peace.

  • Mladen Andrijasevic

    So we have a cease fire with an organization which in its Charter has the following Article 7:
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1609.h

    "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews."

    Article 7 is taken from Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 and quotes the Prophet Muhammad:
    http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/85/3

    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

    Anybody wants to guess what has greater sway over the organization – the terms of cease-fire agreement or the words of the Prophet?

    So what is a sufficient response? It is one after which Hamas stops firing rockets at Israeli civilians . When will that happen and why would Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel? Hamas would do it when it is in accordance with Islamic teaching. Under their theology if the enemy is too strong they can proclaim hudna for 10 years and only after that period expires re-evaluate the possibility of continuing the jihad. The best we can therefore hope for, until these concepts are rendered obsolete by Muslims themselves, is a perpetual state of back-to-back, 10-year-long hudnas.

    Clearly, amid such a reality, Israel's strength would not be perceived as an obstacle to peace, but as the only viable solution.

  • Mladen Andrijasevic

    So we have a cease fire with an organization which in its Charter has the following Article 7:
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1609.h

    "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews."

    Article 7 is taken from Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 and quotes the Prophet Muhammad:
    http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/85/3

    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

    Anybody wants to guess what has greater sway over the organization – the terms of cease-fire agreement or the words of the Prophet?

    So what is a sufficient response? It is one after which Hamas stops firing rockets at Israeli civilians . When will that happen and why would Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel? Hamas would do it when it is in accordance with Islamic teaching. Under their theology if the enemy is too strong they can proclaim hudna for 10 years and only after that period expires re-evaluate the possibility of continuing the jihad. The best we can therefore hope for, until these concepts are rendered obsolete by Muslims themselves, is a perpetual state of back-to-back, 10-year-long hudnas.

    Clearly, amid such a reality, Israel's strength would not be perceived as an obstacle to peace, but as the only viable solution.

  • Mladen Andrijasevic

    So we have a cease fire with an organization which in its Charter has the following Article 7:
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1609.h

    "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews."

    Article 7 is taken from Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 and quotes the Prophet Muhammad:
    http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/85/3

    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

    Anybody wants to guess what has greater sway over the organization – the terms of cease-fire agreement or the words of the Prophet?

    So what is a sufficient response? It is one after which Hamas stops firing rockets at Israeli civilians . When will that happen and why would Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel? Hamas would do it when it is in accordance with Islamic teaching. Under their theology if the enemy is too strong they can proclaim hudna for 10 years and only after that period expires re-evaluate the possibility of continuing the jihad. The best we can therefore hope for, until these concepts are rendered obsolete by Muslims themselves, is a perpetual state of back-to-back, 10-year-long hudnas.

    Clearly, amid such a reality, Israel's strength would not be perceived as an obstacle to peace, but as the only viable solution.

  • Rivkah F.

    Excellent article. Sad to say, some will never learn because they are willfully blind and suffer from "cognitive egocentrism", i.e., everyone is just like you and me and want to lead a good life. They cannot understand the power of a fanatic's ideology. Many in the West and many Israelis suffer from an irrational guilt complex which explains the other side's hatred as the fault of the West and/or Israel. In the end, more will die and the forces of evil just get stronger because of "peace advocates." And, university department's of that phony discipline of "peace studies" will feather the nests of such advocates.

  • D_Boy

    Nukes proved they end war. Like right away…

    • DaveS

      One – or two at the most in this instance. My future father-in-law survived WW2 because of the nukes. My only regret is that it was necessary to load another plane with one.

  • mike

    excellent article. And, in the interest of clear-sightedness, I offer you this analysis. Israel is surrounded on all sides by hostile forces, but it is no longer the Israelis but the Jews. In past decades the Arab masses raled against the "Zionists," now they rale against the"Jews," creating effectively a situation not incomparable to pre-war Nazi Germany from the ideological point of view. The major difference with the past is that as long as it was against the Zionists, there was a bit of wiggle room to sit down and make land concessions, however tragic and idiotic they proved in the future. When their wrath is against the Jews, there is no wiggle room at all. Now here is where clear sightedness is necessary – Israel surrounded on all sides is doomed, it cannot, barring a full scale nuclear war with Iran among others, manage to survive in a neighborhood of heavily armed, fanaticized, manipulated millions fired up not to reclaim what they imagine as their rights, but to embark on a crusade to wipe out am ethnic-religous group that their imams tell them the Koran designated to be wiped out anyway. We can also discourse on the weakness of the American committment and the irregular but noticeable hostility of the European nations, but that is a secondary detail for the moment The main argument in the interest of Israel is to save itself – as the nation of the Jewish people – and envison when the going gets really rough an evacuation plan that will save the lives of 6 million people (mystical number) because all friends of Israel, myself included, know that that is what looms over the horizon.In the absence of any serious peace plan, which seems to be the case today, it could be an alternate solution. America and Canada are welcoming nations. Now back to the secondary detail – europe – that big ostrich with its head in the sand, is next in view. Remember that good old policy of appeasement? Throwing Czechoslovakia to Hitler only whetted his appetite for more, but Europe is too blind to realize that after the destruction of the Jewish state, it is in the crosshairs next. And there is no Churchill standing in the wings.The southern coasts of Greece, Italy and Spain etc. are only a few hours away , and according to Islamic doctrine, what was once a Muslim conquest remains a Muslim conquest forever.

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    It is out of the closet by the arts of a superb writer.
    In our very hard region, Mr. Ben Gurion said it very well. "Peace shmease" was the corollary of his "UM SHMUM"..
    In the proceedings dictated by the Halachic rulings guiding Jewish life, there is a particular one reseved for use against willy or reluctant husbands. The Court proceeds to exert increasing physical duress until the fellow say. "ROTZEH ANI", I want to sign the divorce papers.

    In the present world conditions the WAR format is the only one fit to assure survival of civilization.

  • jimnjoy

    Read Ezekiel 38. Lots more war to come. Read Matthew 23 and 24. "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom." Matthew 24:6-7, (part). Read Isaiah 53. It's prophesying the coming of Jesus. Read John 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…the world did not recognize him…his own did not receive him…For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. " Thank God.

    • Herbster

      Jimnjoy. Please add to your Bible readings list Joel 3: 9 – 11.

  • DaveS

    The 'all we are saying is give peace a chance' crowd has annoyed me since my high school days of 1968-72. The lines here are very funny and serious – like the UN comedy club routines that the aggrieved parties put on whenever Israel wins something in the field.

    • Mary Sue

      Those that say "give peace a chance" understand neither peace nor chance.

    • UpChuck.Liberals

      Personally I'm a firm believer in giving peace through superior firepower a chance. Let God sort it out. Israel is going to be damned no matter what it does. It might as well eliminate the threat and get it over with.

  • Jossi

    "….there is a time for war, and there is a time for peace, ect" and in each time act accordingly. When in war, act without mercy to your enemy, because he hasn't mercy to you.
    The point is very near where the whole world will be against Islam, as Islam is against the whole world.
    I fear the next war will be total, worldwide and the same can be said for the inherent destruction. I'm also well aware that all totalitarian non islamic regimes are not only collaborating with the Islamic forces, but helping them actively. Intelligent people will instinctively know who is against freedom and who is for.

  • Larry

    This is reaping the stupidity of not arresting, trying, and hanging the terrorist in chief Arafat way back when. As soon as he began to be treated as a legitimate head of psuedo-state it opened the door for the appeasers, the useful idiots, the fellow travelers, the anti-semites, and the barbarians to barge through it.

  • bonnie loranger

    A very , very good article that explains the problem that Israel is confronted with, with great clarity. The Israelis should have gone in Gaza and do as much damage as they could. They were prevented by pressure of the Obama administration who we know have sold out to the muslim brotherhood agenda. Sometimes for freedom and yes peace we must have a war. This is after all how this country came about. Are forefathers fought the English and won and built a great country. A great country for how long who knows? Israel is the only humane country in the Middle East. I only Hope that America wont let her down.

  • http://twitter.com/megapotamus @megapotamus

    An able entry but it is the long discounting of obvious truths and facts that makes this, a simple expiation of truisms, strike so soundly. Any Roman urchin could have told the Kissingers of yesterday and today; war without victory (or defeat) is war without end. Especially hilarious though darkly so is this notion of outlawing war when war is EXPLICIT outlawry. Peace is a continuation of contracts. Here's me on similar themes from a couple years ago but not even the players have changed, much less the script. Behold! War is Binary! http://www.megapotamus.com/wp/?p=780

  • WilliamJamesWard

    War as a central focus of mortal attention takes the mind towards a competative world and
    over time internalizes in neuritis, bursitis, arthritis, tenitus and all that lives inside us to bit us.
    In old age war may be seen as a pleasant passtime, merely a diversion of pain for all of us
    that can do nothing about it, in youth we spill our blood in old age have the blood sucked out of
    us by the government. It may be a prudent but overlooked thing to be very careful who you
    allow to lead and run the show of life………It seems in America we will soon have to pick up
    our weapons of war and march out to meet the challenges of the day, I will if I can only find
    my glasses and remember where I put the keys…………………………….William

  • Laura

    Radical Islam… no, Islam IS radical in and of itself.

    • jemaasjr

      What we call radical Islam is just traditional Islam. The radicals are, on a cultural level, the equivalent of Christian fundamentalists. The difference is that Christ did not favor pedophilia, killing apostates, and you know, other stuff like that.

      • N

        Please remind the Catholics of that last bit. Or do we not consider them Christians anymore?

  • watsa46

    Some will never get IT! The "West" and the Muslims are at war with the Jews. That is why they do not want the Jews to finish with the Palestinians whether they are from the WB or Gaza or both. Both for "incomprehensible reasons" want to eliminate the Jews from the face of this planet. Must have something to do with a "complex" of some sort!
    A fact must be clear to every soul on this Earth: the Muslim people would not be where they are if it was not for Islam.

  • Herman Velarde

    Daniel Greenfield could it be that in years gone by when America operated under it's own laws,and not the International Criminal Courts and like in the days of old, the punishment fit the crime. For example, if a person went into a store and robed and killed a person (s) they would shoot them on the spot or hang them in short order as opposed to what we have now? How many people are on death row and for how long? How many pedifiles and rapists are being treated for whatever is supposedly making them do what they did? ONE THING ABOUT THE DEAT PENALTY, FOR A CRIMINAL OR FOR A TERRORIST, IF YOU KILL THEM THEY DO NOT REPEAT THE OFFENSE, OR TERRORIZE ANYONE, ??????????

  • Choi

    This BS about EXHUMING Arafat is specific in design to" CHARGE" Israel with "murder",upping the PRESSURE.
    A "private" exhumation,SECRET" testing" by the French,and a Full Military Funeral/Re-Burial of their 'murdered martyr" are their SCRIPTED PLAY, all in order to MANUFACTURE more Anti-Israel HOSTILITY.
    Any other U. S. administration would stop France from perpetrating the FRAUD they're about to commit,but NOT this one.
    As they say,"There's NO WHORE LIKE A FRENCH WHORE

    • Drakken

      Some right thinking person should find it's crpyt and use some good ole fassioned fuel and burn that sob to ash.

  • Choi

    "Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly."
    And WHY is that?

    • Mary Sue

      That appears to be entirely random. It happens to everyone every now and then.

    • Larry

      There appear to be some trigger words, that whilst mostly used in a non-problematic way, can be very very explosive it used in other, equally valid, ways.

      The software picks these up and flags the post for review, but because the site admins don't actually do that, but let a pretty much free and unfettered flow of posting here happen, those posts flagged as such don't get reviewed and get lost.

      If you try posting outright obscenities you post will just get tossed, and occasionally the site admins will pick up the doggy doos left by deshawn and others, but overall this site is very, very lightly moderated.

  • Tanstaafl jw

    "Kill ans be killed" – from the Qur'an.

    • N

      It’s a good thing nobody in the bible says to do anything horrific… like selling your daughter into slavery, stoning rape victims, or killing people who mix their meats at lunch time. Oh wait, yes that bible does say those things. But it’s ok, we’re talking about someone else’s religion here.

  • boon doggle

    Arthur Bomber Harris had it right. 'The only thing that matters is you win. You bloody well win. And then to hell with it.' And somewhere else, he or someone who knew the rub, observed that there are no laws in war, it is a complete breakdown of law. And even the Marxist Ghandi said somewhere that 'there is one thing worse than war…cowardice'. The coward has the uneering ability to give and take in a way that leads straight to war. At least Ghandi worked that one out. And perhaps he was too early into the totalitarian experiment to realize all the horror that Marxism would unleash. I wouldn't question his courage, just his judgement. Mandela is another of those. Most leftist are cowards. Whether its nature or nurture, I'm not sure. However it starts or end, boots on the ground and total victory is all that counts. But I fear the Israelis are being played. First Mavi Marmara, then this. They need to get lateral in their reactions, and creative in their solutions. Like hit Iran, out of the blue. The West has become so predictable, so ponderous in its approaches, and so craven in its politics. But great article. Takes courage to say it.

  • Lee

    Allowing the two sides to fight it out until one wins and the other is destroyed is the only way to ensure long term peace. Wars where neither side wins never solve anything. They only ratchet up the hatred and increase the ferocity of the next war. Which, if neither side wins again, just increases the pressure in the pressure-cooker. Suppressing smaller, more frequent wars in the interest of peace at any cost only guarantees a massive conflagration when the two sides can no longer tolerate each other. Like managing a forest, you have to allow smaller fires to burn as nature intended or you will eventually suffer the massive, uncontrollable, devastating consequences

  • Geppetto

    All of the above comes out of the halls of academia, a cauldron of intellectuals with idealistic visions of a world of misguided dupes who only need the former’s pontifically delivered direction in order to see the beauty of the distortion that in their view is the achievable creation of a peaceful world, devoid of the instruments of death and destruction. They’ll take the lead, be the example, disarm and the rest will be forced to follow, they hope, and be massacred. It has been, at least in my lifetime, ever thus and the madness will continue until these intellectual exercises in fantasyland are stopped and replaced with a bit of common sense and a modicum of understanding of what is truly the confounding complexity of human nature. Perhaps, someday, they’ll achieve the Utopia they seek but, given the sorry state the world is in, now is not that time.

  • kafirman

    Amidst an incisive argument criticizing the multicultural notion of peace, Greenfield lays an egg: "There is no moral technology to prevent war. Or rather war is the moral technology, that when properly applied, ensures peace."

    Unfortunately Greenfield's imagination saw the only possibilities as being between multiculturalistic "peace" (i.e., perpetual, if sporadic, kinetic warfare) or kinetic warfare. But there is another way.

    It is better to help a terrorist come to reach the moral epiphany that he is a monster, than to kill him. Killing have a terrible collateral damage. But even if there is no collateral damage, the ideological high ground is not affected by kinetic warfare. The real business of war is a moral victory in the minds of the erstwhile supporters of the less moral side.

    The best form of killing in warfare is not biological death, but ideological death. True, most true Mohammadians are incorrigible terrorists, but most Muslims are not true Mohammadians. Most Muslims still think humanely and can have their humanity recovered. What is necessary is for politicians to arise and explain the superiority of the "self evident" principles that all men are equal under law and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, inter alia.

    What is necessary is to challenge both the multicultural head-in-the-sand approach (hear no, see no, speak no evil of Islam) and the kinetic warfare vision of war. Basically this means that the left is entirely wrong and the right (including Greenfield) is mostly wrong.

    David Horowitz, for example, is not a true conservative. He does not uphold the self evident beliefs that form the basis for man's unalienable rights. Horowitz is a libertarian who cannot build an ideological foundation of unalienable rights.

    If Mosab Hassan Yousef, or Walid or Theodore Shoebat or Nonie Darwish were the head of the State Department, Islam would be quickly defeated on the cheap and peace and wealth would break out all the world over. Unfortunately there is not a single Republican openly questioning the "thinking" that grants 501(c)3 status to Islam.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You're understanding the cultural strength of Islam and its roots in the region. As well as the susceptibility of its followers or people in general to argument.

      • kafirman

        And what am I missing?

  • garyfouse

    Michael Medved said it best:

    "Passivism never brings peace. What brings peace is a just and victorious war."

    Unless we just surrender, we are going to have to fight that war eventually.

  • The Desert Demon

    If your enemy is dead then he can not kill you or yours.

  • Len_Powder

    Brilliant article Daniel! Keep up the excellent material. I'm looking forward to your book.

  • Fritz

    It is at this point in time that I am extremely proud of the stance that Canada's Conservative government has taken. Foreign Affairs minister John Baird said in no uncertain terms, "We not only stand behind Israel we stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel against the forces of terror". What does Israel get from the U.S State Department?, calls for restraint and a cease fire. I honestly hope that the cease fire ends so the Israeli Defense Force can wipe Hamas off the map, the Gaza strip is little more then an Islamist prison camp thanks to them and the people there are used as nothing but cannon fodder.. Oddly enough Jordan is doing to Hamas what Israel must do at this very moment. Why? Because they know that Hamas is a puppet of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Anamah

    Daniel's article describes the situation with the accuracy of the scalpel in the hands of a great surgeon.

  • Walt

    As a retired Navy Chief and a 100% (combat related) disabled veteran of Vietnam, one would suspect that I had seen enough death and destruction – and I have! But aversion to death and destruction must be coupled with common sense, and that is where many are found wanting. We are NOT going to talk the followers of Islam out of their chosen path of subjugation of all other religions/peoples, and they are NOT going to achieve their goals through democratic means.

    I submit that if you agree with me, you will hard pressed to ignore that the longer we wait to deal decisively with the problem, the stronger our adversary becomes and his ideology spreads.

    Facts being facts, Israel should have going into Gaza and reclaimed it FOREVER, expelling all who lived there. At the same time, they should announce that they will continue to amass their real estate holdings if others feel they want to test their ability to conduct war.

    War should not come without a price – some of that oil-rich land that the Arabs covet should be up for grabs in the event of the next conflict.

    Walt

  • Lata Tauro

    It would be nice to have an explanation of the change in the maps of Israel and Palestine from 1948 to current times. Could someone please give a coherent explanation for this. The maps are available to anyone who cares to go online and google them. And having seen them, explain why Palestine which is supposedly the aggressor has been consistently growing smaller and smaller since Israel came to be in 1948.

    • clancy

      In War, when an aggressor loses that usually means they lose territory. What do you want Israel to do, just keep going back to its original boundaries every time it wins a conflict? Under Islam any territory that it conquers is Islamic Territory for all time, even if it is later los in a war. Do Muslims have a right to Spain, Portugal, and part of France because old maps can verify that they were once under Islamic rule?

  • Ghostwriter

    War may be a bad thing but there are a whole lot of things worse than that.

  • Koreakid

    There is no substatue for absolute victory when dealing with animals! If the world (to include the US) had stayed out of it or better yet, Israel simply told the world to piss-off this would have been over a long time ago.

  • vikr

    Brilliant!