Rudyard Kipling"
“When you're left wounded on Afganistan's plains and
the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier”
General Douglas MacArthur"
“We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .” “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
“Nobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass
"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint."
I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,
The Soldier squared his shoulders and said
And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here,
Lord, It needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
More
than 40,000 people have been slaughtered during the rebellion in Syria,
and the death toll rises daily. The European Union does not appear to
be particularly concerned. North Korea’s rulers have launched a
three-stage rocket, moving closer to their goal of developing a
nuclear-tipped ICBM, and they’re sharing nuclear-weapons technology with
the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism in Iran. The EU does not seem
to be worrying about that either. Israel is considering building homes
on barren hills adjacent to Jerusalem. The EU’s 27 foreign ministers said they were “deeply dismayed” and warned Israel of unspecified consequences if the plan is carried out. The European Union — recent winner, I should note, of the Nobel Peace
Prize — has its priorities. So let’s talk about what the Israelis are
doing to so distress them.
The area in which Israel may build covers 4.6 square miles. For the sake
of comparison, Denver International Airport is 53 square miles. Known
as E1, this area lies within a territory that has a much older name: the
Judean Desert. Might Jews think they have a legitimate historical claim
to the Judean Desert? This question is rarely asked. For Israeli military planners, E1’s strategic value is more germane
than its history. Developing it would help in the defense of Jerusalem,
and would connect Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim, an Israeli town with a
population of 40,000. Media reports note that both Israelis and
Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. Media reports often fail
to note that right now both Jews and Arabs live in Jerusalem — for the
most part peacefully, with both populations growing — while Hamas vows
to forcibly expel every Jew from Jerusalem. Such threats of ethnic
cleansing also do not trouble the EU much. It has been widely reported that if Israel should build in E1, the possibility of a two-state solution would be shattered. The New York Times was among those reporting this but, to the paper’s credit, it later published a correction,
stating that building in E1 actually “would not divide the West Bank in
two,” nor would it cut off the West Bank cities Ramallah and Bethlehem
from Jerusalem. Anyone looking at a map would see that.People forget, or perhaps choose not to remember, that Israelis
always have been willing to give up land for peace, including land
acquired in defensive wars. Historically, that has not been a common
practice, for a very sound reason: Aggression can be deterred only if it
carries substantial risk. Nevertheless, Israelis gave up Gaza and the
Sinai, and have offered to give up more land — at least 97 percent of
the West Bank, retaining only those areas absolutely necessary for
national security. Israelis do want something in exchange: an end to the long conflict
they have been fighting against those who insist that the Jewish people,
uniquely, has no right to self-determination, no right to independence,
no right to self-rule within their ancient and ancestral homeland. What Israelis have received instead: missile and terrorist attacks and, last week, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal at a rally in Gaza proclaiming
that “jihad,” armed struggle, will continue until Israel is defeated,
conquered, and replaced — every square mile — by an Islamist theocracy. “Since Palestine is ours, and it is the land of the Arabs and Islam,” he said,
“it is unthinkable that we would recognize the legitimacy of the
Israeli occupation of it. . . . Let me emphasize that we adhere to this
fundamental principle: We do not recognize Israel . . . The Palestinian
resistance will crush it and sweep it away, be it Allah’s will.” He
added: “We will free Jerusalem inch by inch, stone by stone. Israel has
no right to be in Jerusalem.” Within the EU there was a debate about whether to comment on that.
Eventually, pressure from Germany and the Czech Republic led the EU to
issue a mild rebuke to Hamas — a single paragraph in a three-page statement focusing on Israel’s “dismaying” behavior. Mahmoud Abbas, regarded as a moderate Palestinian leader, could not
bring himself to call Mashaal’s latest threats wrong — or even
unhelpful. Instead, Azzam Alahmed, a senior official in Abbas’s Fatah
organization, described Mashaal’s speech as “very positive,” because it
stressed the need for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. Such
reconciliation would be achieved not by Hamas softening its positions,
but by Fatah more explicitly agreeing that Israel’s extermination —
rather than a two-state solution — remains the Palestinian goal, the
final solution, if you will. Just after the conclusion of the truce halting the most recent
Hamas/Israel battle, Abbas went to the U.N. General Assembly to request
that Palestine be recognized as a “non-member state.” The outcome was
never in doubt — the UNGA, which cannot with a straight face be
described as a deliberative body, has a reflexively anti-Israeli
majority. Abbas’s action was a blatant violation of the Oslo Accords,
under which any change in the Palestinians’ status is to come about only
through negotiations with Israel. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman laments
that “the Europeans in general, and the European left in particular,
have so little influence” in Israel. He is puzzled as to why that is. He
insists that “it’s incumbent on every Israeli leader to test, test and
test again — using every ounce of Israeli creativity — to see if Israel
can find a Palestinian partner for a secure peace.” Only by so doing, he
adds, can Israel “have the moral high ground in a permanent struggle.” If “creative” Israelis were to find such a partner, would Friedman be
able to arrange a life-insurance policy for him? And between those
threatening their neighbors with genocide — which is, indisputably, what
Hamas is doing — and those offering to negotiate peace with their
neighbors — which is what Israel is doing — can there really be
ambiguity about who holds the moral high ground? Evidently, there can — at least for Friedman and the EU and, I’m
afraid, lots of other folks around the world. Israelis, and their few
friends, may just have to learn to live with that as best they can. National Review — Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security.
