Skip to comments.Hitler Is Still Dead (Israel Needs To Focus On Present Not A Past Threat Alert)
Posted on 05/27/2006 5:02:02 PM PDT by goldstategop
Wednesday Canada's National Post published an error correction. Last Friday, the newspaper's lead story reported that the Iranian parliament had approved legislation that would compel Jews to wear a yellow strip, Christians to wear a red strip and Zoroastrians to wear a blue strip on their clothes. The story fomented an international storm. Yet it turned out that the story was untrue - or jumped the gun. The Iranian parliament did pass legislation expressing its intention to install a compulsory Islamic dress code for the country's subjects, but it did not characterize the required attire.
On its Web site last Friday the National Post asked its readers to submit their opinions on the question, "Is Iran turning into the new Nazi Germany?" After the story was published, Canada's new prime minister, Stephen Harper, reacted to the story saying that Iran "is very capable of this kind of action."
In Wednesday's edition, National Post editor Douglas Kelly wrote, "We apologize for the mistake and for the consternation it has caused." For its part, Canada's organized, pro-Islamist Muslim community is demanding that Harper apologize for his statements. Akbar Manoussi of the Ottawa Muslim Association threatened Harper with voter backlash in the next elections for his statements. In his words, "The next time [Harper] goes to get the vote he will find out what people think of him." Manoussi went on to say that Harper's statement "sends a message that he doesn't get his information right."
The entire episode could be chalked up to a tempest in a teacup - just another distorted news story that exaggerated recent developments. The Iranian parliament passed a law appointing a committee empowered to determine a national dress code appropriate for the return of the 12th imam, the Shi'ite messiah - a return that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes is imminent. And as Harper rightly noted, the Iranian regime is more than capable of calling for religious minorities to wear distinctive garments reminiscent of the Nazi era. The National Post received bad information and believed it because it jibed with the character of the regime in Teheran.
Yet the National Post story last Friday, and the storms it caused both before and after its inaccuracy was brought to light, point to a much greater problem than any single Iranian decision regarding what Iranians of various religions must wear.
Last Friday Harper said, "It boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the Earth would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany." His statement exposes one of the central deficiencies of the West's response to the global jihad, whose command post is currently headquartered in Teheran.
Since the Vietnam War era, a disturbing notion has been accepted by wide swathes of the peoples of the Western world and has become a writ of faith among Western academic and governing elites. That notion is that the last just war was the Second World War and that the last enemy that deserved to be defeated utterly was Nazi Germany. Only Hitler constituted an implacable foe. This conclusion, which was seamlessly grafted onto the pacifist worldview of the radical Left in Europe and the US in the 1960s, and of the Israeli Left in the 1990s, holds that still today, the only enemy that the West can conscionably fight is Adolf Hitler.
By this logic, if Ahmadinejad and his friends say that Jews have to wear a yellow star on their outer garments, then that means that Iran today is the new Nazi Germany and if it is the new Nazi Germany then all people of good conscience have to declare war on Iran.
But the converse is also true. If Ahmadinejad doesn't start sporting a Hitler mustache, if Jews aren't prohibited from entering public parks and if there is no Wermacht or S.S. and no gas chambers, then there is no reason to fight Iran. In fact, in their absence, the only moral thing to do is to negotiate with Iran with an aim of appeasing it because the Iranians aren't Nazis and so an understanding must be reached.
It is in this context that one must judge Wednesday's summit in London between US, Russian, Chinese, British, French and German officials on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. The emissaries met to discuss which package of prizes to award Iran. Germany, France and Britain propose awarding Iran a light water nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel that will of course serve peaceful purposes only because Iran will commit itself to ceasing it uranium enrichment activities. The Europeans also wish to include a warning to Iran that if it doesn't stop enriching uranium it will face very, very mean and tough sanctions. The Europeans foresee, for instance, denying Iranian nuclear scientists visas to foreign countries.
The Russians and the Chinese object to the Europeans' proposal because they oppose any sanctions on Iran. The Americans support the Europeans' negotiations with the Iranians but have refused their proposals that the US open direct negotiations with Iran and commit itself to not taking action to overthrow the Iranian regime.
The non-Nazi Iranians refuse to have anything to do with the European proposal. Teheran made its displeasure with Europe known on Tuesday when it tested its Shihab-3 ballistic missile that with its range of 1500 kilometers covers most of Europe.
On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said that any attempt to curb Iran's nuclear program would be considered an act of aggression against Iran. In his words, anyone who dares to commit such an act "will be faced with a lasting and historic slap."
The thing of it is that the question of whether or not Iran is the new Nazi Germany is wholly irrelevant. Iran today is the engine of the global jihad war machine and it is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons which it has already pledged to use in order to commit genocide. With or without jackboots, Iran is a clear and present danger to the Western world. Yet rather than acknowledge this reality, the leaders of the Western world are allowing and indeed insisting that since Ahmadinejad isn't Hitler, his venality is besides the point, with the point being that he must be appeased.
THIS DISASTROUS Western preference for only fighting Hitler even though he has been dead for 61 years is part of a general culture where appearances are more important than substance. This culture held sway this week in Washington during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit. Olmert carefully chose the image he sought to sell to his American hosts. The one he chose was Israel's classic frontier image as "plucky little Israel."
In his speech before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, and during his meetings with administration officials on Monday and Tuesday, Olmert strove to be perceived as the natural and legitimate heir to the image of Israel as an independent, strong and bold young country. In his address before Congress, Olmert said, "Our two great nations share a profound belief in the importance of freedom and a common pioneering spirit deeply rooted in optimism. It was the energetic spirit of our pioneers that enabled our two countries to implement the impossible. To build cities where swamps once existed and to make the desert bloom."
While this statement is true, it is not relevant to the policy issues that Olmert placed before the US government this week. On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Olmert expropriated the image of Israeli pluckiness and toughness earned by his predecessors for their brave and stubborn insistence on standing Israel's ground before our enemies. Yet unlike his predecessors, Olmert is not willing to stand alone if necessary to secure Israel from attack and destruction.
Olmert invoked Israel's pioneering spirit to win American support for his plan to retreat from Judea and Samaria and effectively surrender the areas to Hamas and its Iranian and al-Qaida sponsors. He wrapped himself in the courageous legacy of the Israeli warriors who risked their lives to defeat Israel's enemies, in order to gain American support for a plan that will enable those same enemies to establish a base for global terror in Judea and Samaria.
If we are to judge by appearances, then Olmert's exploitation of Israel's past pluck was successful. In an Orwellian acrobatic act, President George W. Bush referred to his surrender plan as "bold."
Luckily, while imagery may have won the day this week, its victory was far from overwhelming. Even as Olmert received his warm welcome at the White House, the first seeds of change began to sprout. Ahead of last summer's withdrawal from Gaza, the Wall Street Journal refused to publish op-eds that opposed the plan. Tuesday, the Journal published an opinion column by former CIA director R. James Woolsey under the heading "West Bank Terror State."
Woolsey maintained that the Gaza withdrawal, which paved the way for Hamas's ascendance to power and enabled the transformation of Gaza into a base for global terrorism, had "utterly failed," and that Israel should not receive US backing for compounding the failure in Judea and Samaria. Woolsey also registered his opposition to the uprooting of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria concluding, "A two-state solution can become a reality when the Palestinians are held to the same standards as Israelis - to the requirement that Jewish settlers in a West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state would be treated with the same decency that Israel treats its Arab citizens."
And Woolsey was not alone. While the Israeli media continue to block serious discussion of the consequences of the Gaza retreat and the likely consequences of a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, over the past two weeks in newspapers and radio programs throughout the US that debate was opened. US lawmakers and administration officials who were exposed to this debate raised serious concerns about the wisdom of Olmert's plan to the premier in private meetings throughout his three-day visit.
This unprecedented scrutiny no doubt played a role in Olmert's decision to tone down his rhetoric on the wisdom of retreat and to push back his timeline for implementing his surrender plan until after Bush leaves office. As recently as last week Olmert had maintained that the mass expulsions of Israeli citizens from their homes and the retreat of IDF units must be implemented before Bush leaves the White House.
Like the uproar over the Iranian Nazi dress code or lack thereof, the problem Olmert's plan presents is that its image and its content are unrelated. Ahmadinejad is not Hitler. But this is immaterial. He is a distinct, Jew-hating genocidal dictator on the cusp of achieving the wherewithal to kill on an unprecedented scale. He can and should be defeated because of who he is, not because he is a new Hitler.
Olmert presented himself this week as the heir to the legacy of Israeli heroism. Yet he came to Washington seeking support for his plan of capitulation. His plan must be rejected to preserve the legacy of that heroism.
The key to winning the war against the global jihad is to encourage Western societies - and first and foremost among them Israel - to stop looking for S.S. uniforms before they shoot. It is only after we regain the understanding that enemies come in all shapes and sizes that we will stop luxuriating in the delusion that the memory of past strength will suffice to protect us against current dangers.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
But studying the past makes a person be aware of the future. Horrific things of the past can be camouflaged in the future by others who think along the same lines as Nazi Germany.
What about Arafat?
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
Anyone that says "Hitler is dead and means Hitler's "evil is dead" is smoking sumpin that induces a powerful state of denial.
Evil isn't dead...islam is infinitely more evil than Hitler.
Islam has institutionalized evil..and called it "good."
Very well spoken, sir. There is a Hitler-cult that flourishes in the Muslim world which needs to be exposed.
Or, as Muslims call him, "Hitler of blessed memory".
The Arabic version of Mein Kampf is selling like hotcakes.
Or is that falafel?
Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
This can be applied to Hitler:
Hitler killed 6 million Jews, but no one found the body (Russians claim they did, but Commies live for lying) so therefore Hitler never existed.
Teach LIEberal Logic to the kids at home with such luminaries as:
Jimmy Hoffa! Judge Crater! Amelia Earhart! David Rockefellar & Natilie Holloway!
Tons of fun for everyone!
I think you are right that we need to talk about the connection with Hitler and the Muslims. I was watching O'reilly the other day on TV and he had some African American Muslims talking about how they would like to start killing the good white people first BEFORE they turned into devils, because they were talking about the white man being a devil and that it was ok to kill white people. It reminded me of the insanity of Hitler and his propaganda and the outrageous things he would say about the Jews. I think the connection is very interesting, and I don't think it is an accident either that black Americans have been converted to that religion, beginning with the prison population. Hitler recruited those who were in the same situation, people who were considered to be misfits and malcontents, and he started with them. This is what I see happening both over in the middle east and over here. I don't know how much of this is a coincidence and how much is by design, but it sure does look interesting.
I caught that moment when the NOIer said it was time to start killing white people. Would have been fun if O'Reilly had asked,
"Why don't you start with me?"
(The NOIer lunges, and O'Reilly takes him out with a Glock.)
Just wishful thinking. But I've always believed that hatred of Jews by many blacks is a form of wannabe-ism; i.e., the nazis hated Jews, and they were the `master race'. If I hate Jews, therefore, I'm elevated to a higher notch, racially. And other twisted logic.
Actually, I think I recall the O'reily did tell the guy to kill him right now. I just couldn't believe the insanity of it all, and the guys seemed to crazy, with a dead look in their eyes, just look good old Hitler. It is amazing, how everything is so twisted. Someone could be so wrong and not even know it, it is unbelievable. But what is worse, these people actually have followers, it's not like it is some crazy killer locked up, no, these people actually have followers, and not just a couple either.
Women are forced to wear burial shrouds bigger than ribbons. That's half the population and it's done to keep them in their place, behind the family goat or dead in the nearest soccer stadium from a gunshot to the head. Same thing as colored ribbons or a yellow star sewn on a garment. If people can't see the Nazi mindset behind burkhas, they're in serious denial. Israel is in peril, but so is the rest of the world.
Hitler Is Still Dead...but his ideas still go on.
I'll second that, elcid. Well stated, DS. I see many parallels developing in the Hitler-like evil currently being proclaimed and embraced in Iran by its leaders, against Jews.
Only have to read the news to know that Hitler is alive and well today. . .
Hitler, as hideously evil as he was, was not the leading mass murderer of the 20th century. That honor clearly belongs to Uncle Joe Stalin.
But many Jews had a warm spot in their hearts for the Red internationalist movement which did not concentrate specifically on the killing of Jews -- although it killed many of them -- in the way that Hitler did. It is a particularly Jewish distortion of history to take insufficient notice of the numerically greater crimes of Stalin and to make Hitler alone the paradigm of evil.
I salute this article for pointing out the war against Hitler was not the only, or the last, just war.