Israel and NGAs — and what this means for America
Bookworm on Aug 01 2006 at 9:59 pm | Filed under: America, Anti-war, Arabs, Hezbollah, Israel
[NGA, as opposed to the familiar NGO, is not a typo. I'll explain in a minute.]
I had lunch with DQ today and, at his request, gave him a run-down of Israel’s history, starting with Herzl and modern Zionism. I took him through the Eastern European pogroms; the declining Ottoman Empire; the ascendent British Empire (which saw England gain control over the Holy Land); the Balfour Declaration; Arab Nationalism; oil’s increasing importance; Britain’s fear that the Arab’s would give military support to the Germans; the England’s craven decision to refuse to allow Jewish refugees into the Holy Land, both before and after the war; and Britain’s final decision to hand its land (and, whether or not one likes the idea of Empire, that land was Britain’s at the time) over to the UN, which then came up with the partition plan that created Israel. I concluded that, if anyone is at fault for today’s situation, it’s England.
I then deluged DQ with a post-1947 history. That history didn’t focus on Israel’s Democratic principles, its economic development, its scientific contributions, or its ability to absorb the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Arab lands. Instead, I ticked off the wars.
In 1948, almost immediately after the UN partioned off a tiny section of the Holy Land (much smaller than present day Israel) to give to the Jews, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked. Israel, with an infinitely smaller population — many still recovering from concentration camps — and makeshift weapons, won most of the world’s admiration by fighting off these nations.
Things went chugging along until 1956, when Israel joined with France and Britain against Egypt, which had tried to hijack the all-important Suez Canal. Again, this was a battle of nations.
By 1967, Egypt, Jordan and Syria had achieved a massive arms build-up pressing against Israel’s borders. Egyptian President Nasser than ordered the UN peacekeepers in the Sinai to go away and they did, slinking off into the night. This left Israel entirely exposed to nations that had declared their intent to destroy her utterly. Abba Eban, in a masterful speech, explained to the UN why Israel considered these aggressive acts a sufficient casus belli for her to go on the offensive. Israel, for having fought off these three nations, was again admired for her bravery and prowess.
1973 saw the Yom Kippur War, which started on the holiest of holy days, when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel, again with the stated purpose of destroying her. With American help (thank you, President Nixon), Israel was able to rebuff this surprise attack. Again, many in the world viewed Israel as valiant.
I realized after narrating these events to DQ that the Arab nations have no longer been in the frontline of Arab aggression towards Israel. Egypt, of course, officially bowed out in 1977, but none of the other nations officially declared themselves at peace with Israel. Instead, guided by Arafat, they have ceded the war to Non-Governmental Armies (the “NGAs” of my post title).
The NGAs, of course, are not the homegrown entities they seem. Hezbollah, as all but those living in dark caves know, is nothing but Iran, with a good dollop of Syria thrown in. The PLO and, now, Hamas, received funds from most Arab states. But the fact is, these organizations are not nations. They do not sit in the UN, they cannot be on the receiving end of trade boycotts, and it is often questionable whether the civilian populations that house them actually support them. They are the most effective tool that could be devised against Israel. Israel, instead of being a David against gigantic Arab nations, has become a Goliath against these NGAs.
But before you think to yourself, well, that’s Israel’s tough luck, think a little more about America’s own situation. We too used to wage wars against nations. Civilian populations were deemed fair game because it was “their nation” that was at war, and they were part of that nation. We also used to know where to find our enemy. Germans were mostly in Germany, except for those troops that out branched out — in uniform, with battle insignia and flags — to other nations suffering under their bootheel. Same for the Japanese. Even in Vietnam or Korea, which were both rich in guerilla warfare, there was still a clearly defined enemy and a self-defined nation, in the form of North Vietnam or North Korea.
Things are different now. Just as Israel has done for so many years, we face a chimerical enemy. It doesn’t fly the flag of any nation, it doesn’t call any place its home, it is not bound by any civilized rules of warfare, it cannot be subject to economic sanctions, it has no citizens who support it or cry for relief from its burdens. And because it is not a national army, it makes it infinitely easier for those who oppose American values to cry foul whenever America, in pursuit of these deadly NGAs, steps on the “innocents” behind whom the NGAs shield themselves.
Talking to Technorati: Israel, Non-governmental armies, Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Yom Kippur War
Email This Post To A Friend
19 Responses to “Israel and NGAs — and what this means for America”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good post.
Excellent post indeed. Those who are completely ignorant of Israel’s place in the world should read Dennis Miller’s, “A Short History of Palestine.” Miller like BW is a former liberal who has seen the light (of reason).
Sorry, here’s the link.
Dennis Miller’s Short History of Palestine
Excellent insights. I wondered at the change in international attitude toward Israel. This helps clarify it for me. Terrorists, NGA’s, of course, are craven cowards who hide behind women and children. The result is that the honest soldier feels uneasy and insecure fighting them because decent soldiers from decent societies go out of their way to avoid civilians (for example, Israel dropping warning leaflets to evacuate), though these indecent societies exploit civilian deaths. The media, obtusely, shamelessly promotes this idea of the big brutal (the left’s favorite adjective to describe Israel) army against a ragtag cluster of fighters and kids. So even a moral army is constantly depicted as immoral. No doubt it is a win-win for the bad guys since they apparently don’t care how many women and children on either side die. Theirs? Bad press for the Israelis and wild international condemnation. Dead Israelis? A fitting end for pigs, dogs and apes, and as Hamas says, any “occupier” regardless of age is a military target. It is a different world and a different kind of war. We will have to adjust our thinking accordingly.
Good post, Bookworm. To paraphrase Mao, if NGAs are fish, their masses of supporters are the swamp in which they swim. Isn’t it about time to drain the swamp. So what to do about the enemy here within the U.S.? I have a question for DQ: for the masses of Hezbollah and other Islamofascist supporters within the U.S. that came to the U.S. and took the oath of citizenship indicated below, doesn’t their avowed support for Sharia law negate their Constitutional Oath and disclose their oaths of Citizenship to be fraudulent, indeed a form of Taqiyeh? The U.S. Constitution is the absolute antithesis of Sharia. Isn’t it about time that Congress look at a way to strip the citizenship (or green cards) from those that obtained it fraudulently and overtly proclaim their intent to subvert the Constitution? This is not a freedom of speech issue! Here are key phrases from the “Oath”:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;…”
Bookworms might like to read some of the original sources on ‘nga’, especially as Bin Laden and Co. explicitly cite these two documents as guiding their thought:
The Bill Lind
article that defined ‘fourth generation warfare’.
Martin Van Crevald’s book,
The Transformation of War, which places it all in a larger context.
Hi Danny,
One can promise to support and defend the Constitution and the laws and still work to change them. Assuming that the people you are talking about work within the system to implement Sharia law by changing the laws of the United States, their oath and their beliefs are not in conflict. To the extent that Sharia is, in fact, in conflict with the Constitution, any laws these immigrants manage to pass will presumably be thrown out by the Courts as unconstitutional. Then they will have to work to change the Constitution — a daunting task.
A democratic society always contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The Constitution grants Americans great freedoms, one of which is the freedom to revoke those freedoms.
Is taking the oath a Taqiyeh if the person taking the oath still has allegiance to a foreign state? Sure. But if one truly renounces all allegiances to other states and pledges allegiance to America (but simply harbors the desire to radically change America once here) the taking of the oath is legitimate.
Hmm - don’t know about that, DQ. If your goal was to move here, and then once here you want to change what, presumably, were the very institutions and reasons that caused you to want to move here in the first place, well - stay home. You’ll be a lot less stressed.
If you come here, you come here. Don’t be expecting here (wherever “here” is) to then change to become something closer to what you decided to leave, in the interests of making you feel more at home. That isn’t how it works.
[...] [Read more and discuss this topic with Bookworm and DQ] [...]
Hi JJ,
Sure it is, if you do it using the procedures set out in the Constitution and the laws themselves. Maybe we should change the oath to say something like “I agree not to try and change the Constitution and the laws to subvert the freedoms expressed therein” or I agree with the principles of freedom behind the Constitution” or some such, but until we do that, people are free to come here, become citizens, and (like any other citizens) work within the system to change the laws. What they can’t do is advocate overthrow of the system by external means, such as violence.
Erp-
Loved the Dennis Miller piece–thanks and great blog entry Bookworm!
Anyone in american can do anything to change America, so long as they don’t use intimidation tactics, blackmail, assassination, exploitation, and subversion to do it.
Even duels were outlawed in America because of the risk it held for political opponents, that could kill each other more easily than compromising. Of course, the solution had a side effect, but it was a less destructive side effect than the presence of violence eroding the rule of law.
Clarification:
Absolutely, you have every right to try to do that, if you stay within the rules.
But though you have the right to try, you have no right to an expectation of success, anymore than anybody else does.
We are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness; nowhere is it written that you’re going to catch it, or even that you can confidently expect to catch it. But you can sure pursue it.
If you come here with the goal of changing the way we are, that’s probably not the right goal. It also, to me, somewhat calls into question why you came. If you wanted this place to be more like home, why not just stay there, where it’s 100% like home?
I raise the question only because this is the tactic Muslims have used to undermine Europe. In the 1970s, they promised to outbreed the Europeans until their numbers could undermine its institutions from within. It’s working. In many countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, France), the Socialist/Left is pandering to their calls for Sharia because the Muslims constitute an important swing vote. On the other hand, I am torn, as I know many Muslims who are here on entirely honorable intentions, value the multi-religious democracy we have, and are making great contributions to our society. So, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? How can we prevent what is happening in Europe from happening here?
Keep your guns danny, and make sure the deathsquads are “disappeared” if they ever show their faces in America.
Forever vigilance will also help. Watch over the ACLU and CAIR.
Hi Danny,
Only by sharply restricting immigration (which we already do) and enforcing the restrictions (which we don’t do so well).
Thank you, DQ…very clarifying! Yes, controlled migration and education are the answers, together with strong support for the 2nd Amendment (thank you, YM). We will soon be put to the test, I have no doubt, seeing the train wrecks unfold in Eurabia and the Middle East. Unfortunately, it’s not only Muslim extremists but their many fellow travelers here in the U.S. that need to watched and countered. We can only do that if we speak the truth plainly about the threat they present.
Generic sales viagra
Generic sales viagra generic sales viagra viagra prescription cheap viagra uk viagra pill dhkjkvhgpju