The Draft Is a Death Sentence

A Million Haredi Soldiers Won’t Help Israel’s Security if the IDF is Afraid to Fight

By David Sidman
The ‘not fair’ argument isn’t a good enough reason to unnecessarily sacrifice the lives of more Israelis. Here’s a hypothetical question for you- If a community of secular Jews in 1938 Germany was being sent to the gas chambers while a community of Haredi Jews was spared from the same fate, would the former complain that it’s not fair that only they have to die? Or would they realize that the fewer Jewish deaths, the better.

Now I realize that the example I gave is extreme and I would never in a million years compare the IDF to Nazis, but a similar parallel can be found between the draft dodging Haredi protesters and the sentiment of those who oppose them. That’s because the sad truth is that more Haredi soldiers in the IDF is a lose-lose for both the Haredim as well as Israel as a whole. That’s because all it will do is cause more unnecessary soldier deaths at the hands of a scared, broken military that is led by people who are afraid to fight with conviction and are petrified of winning wars.

At this point, you may say to yourself that if everyone refused to serve, there would be no army and no defense for Israel. Although true, there’s a big difference between a protest by currently enlisted military personnel and rewarding a corrupt military with more sheep to the slaughterhouse.

Why do I use such a harsh analogy? Because for many opposed to the protests, it’s largely irrelevant that we have an army who gives their enemies a 15 minute warning before eliminating them (giving them ample time to escape imminent death). They don’t care if Tzahal unnecessarily risks the lives of its troops by abiding by cease fires while under fire behind enemy lines. And so what if infantry men are prosecuted in a show trial for killing terrorists who just moments earlier almost stabbed their fellow soldiers to death. What difference does it make that the upper echelon of the IDF uses our troops as pawns unnecessarily risking their lives to avoid condemnation from a bunch of anti-Semites in the UN (how’s that working out by the way?). All that matters to the pro-draft crowd is fairness for the sake of fairness.

What’s important to the pro-draft crowd is that the Haredim should allow their sons to unnecessarily die in wars with their hands tied behind their back just like their sons do. Otherwise, it’s just not ‘fair’. The problem that most people fail to realize is that a million new Haredim in uniform won’t improve Israel’s security so long as Israel is afraid to fight wars and win them. And that’s precisely the problem and it should be the only problem that those who care about Israel’s security focus on.

Our frustration needs to be directed at those who send commandos onto Hamas affiliated flotillas with paintball guns. Our anger should be directed at the same military who can’t seem to scrounge up the money to insulate military vehicles with bullet-proof armor or provide kevlar vests to those on the front lines, yet magically figured out a way to fund sex change operations for trans soldiers while dishing out 700,000 NIS to hire Elor Azariya’s prosecutor. (The list goes on and on but I’d rather not turn this article into a novel).

As Haredi draft dodgers take to the streets to protest the draft, the push-back from the Israeli public has been loud and clear. Most Israelis believe that the Haredim should serve like the rest of us (except for Israeli Arabs). However, the problem with the anti-draft dodging sentiment isn’t the principle but rather the priorities. That’s because when Haredi draft dodging protests cause more of a controversy than an army who refuses show up to battle, we have a big problem. Our rage shouldn’t be directed at the Haredim, but rather at those who needlessly play Russian Roulette with the lives of Israel’s finest men just to get a pat on the back from the New York Times. Once the broken army is fixed, we can then talk about the draft dodgers.

What US Soldiers Think They Do / What They Really Do

The operative excerpt from Laurence M. Vance:

There are a number of things that U.S. soldiers certainly don’t sign up for. No matter what they think, their family thinks, or what Americans in general think, U.S. soldiers don’t sign up to:

  • defend the country
  • fight for our freedoms
  • keep Americans safe from terrorists
  • support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic
  • protect Americans from credible threats
  • serve the country
  • secure American borders
  • patrol American coasts
  • guard American shores
  • watch over American skies
  • fight “over there” so we don’t have to fight “over here”

So, what is it that U.S. soldiers actually sign up for? Truth be told, they sign up to:

  • boldly go where no American soldier has any place going
  • obey orders unconditionally
  • die in vain, for a lie, or for a mistake
  • die for empire
  • be a pawn in the hands of Uncle Sam to be moved around as he sees fit
  • serve the state
  • help unleash sectarian violence
  • invade other countries
  • occupy other countries
  • fight foreign wars
  • maintain U.S. hegemony
  • make widows and orphans
  • launch preemptive strikes
  • spread democracy at the point of a gun
  • be the world’s policeman, fireman, bully, and social worker
  • be part of the president’s personal attack force
  • enforce UN resolutions
  • die a senseless death
  • fight unjust wars
  • kill and maim foreigners
  • kill civilians
  • die for imperialism
  • destroy foreign industry, culture, and infrastructure
  • change regimes
  • nation build
  • fight immoral wars
  • defend other countries
  • fight unnecessary wars
  • carry out a reckless, belligerent, and deeply flawed U.S. foreign policy
  • neglect their families
  • intervene in other countries
  • create terrorists, insurgents, and militants because of foreign interventions
  • enforce no-fly zones in other countries
  • fight undeclared wars
  • take sides in civil wars
  • engage in offense instead of defense
  • get PTSD or a traumatic brain injury
  • have their limbs or genitals blown off
  • die for the military/industrial complex
  • be a global force for evil

See the rest of it on LRC, here.

Ron Paul: Just Bring the Troops Home!

Neocons Hijack Trump’s Syria Policy

Does anyone in the Trump Administration have a clue about our Syria policy? In March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared to be finally pulling back from President Obama’s disastrous “Assad must go” position that has done nothing but prolong the misery in Syria. At the time, Tillerson said, the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.”

Those of us who believe in national sovereignty would say that is pointing out the obvious. Nevertheless, it was a good sign that US involvement in Syria – illegal as it is – would no longer seek regime change but would stick to fighting ISIS.

Then out of the blue this past week, Tillerson did another 180 degree policy turn, telling a UN audience in Geneva that, “[t]he reign of the Assad family is coming to an end. The only issue is how that should that be brought about.”

The obvious question is why is it any of our business who runs Syria, but perhaps that’s too obvious. Washington’s interventionists have long believed that they have the unilateral right to determine who is allowed to head up foreign countries. Their track record in placing “our guy” in power overseas is abysmal, but that doesn’t seem to stop them. We were promised that getting rid of people like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi would light the fire of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Instead, it has produced nothing but death and misery – and spectacular profits for the weapons manufacturers who fund neocon think tanks.

In Syria, Assad has been seen as a protector of Christians and other minorities against the onslaught of in many cases US-backed jihadists seeking his overthrow. While the Syrian system is obviously not a Switzerland-like democracy, unlike our great “ally” Saudi Arabia they do at least have elections contested by different political parties, and religious and other minorities are fully integrated into society.

Why has the Trump Administration shifted back to “Assad must go”? One reason may be that, one-by-one, the neocons who opposed Trump most vociferously during the campaign have found themselves and their friends in positions of power in his Administration. The neocons are great at winning while losing.

The real story behind Washington’s ongoing determination to overthrow the Syrian government is even more disturbing. In a bombshell interview last week, a former Qatari Prime Minister confessed that his country, along with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States, began shipping weapons to jihadists from the very moment Syrian unrest began in 2011. The well-connected Qatari former minister was trying to point out that his country was not alone in backing al-Qaeda and even ISIS in Syria. In the course of defending his country against terrorism charges leveled by Saudi Arabia, he has spilled the beans about US involvement with the very groups claimed to be our arch-enemies. As they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA supported radical Islamic terrorism in Syria.

Haven’t we done enough damage in Syria? Do we really need to go back to 2011 and destroy the country all over again? The neocons never admit a mistake and never change course, but I do not believe that the majority of Americans support their hijacking of President Trump’s Syria policy. It is long past time for the US to leave Syria alone. No bases, no special forces, no CIA assassination teams, no manipulating their electoral system. We need to just come home.

From, here.

Moshe Feiglin Against Cultural Relativism

The Consciousness Octopus Closes in on Family

By Moshe Feiglin

Radical Left MK Merav Michaeli, who stated last week that the core family “is one of the things that we need to start breaking apart” did not actually say anything we did not know. All she did was to directly say what she and the entire politically correct dictatorship that rules Western and Israeli consciousness say all the time – just in a more sophisticated manner.

Although their values represent a minority, these forces rule Israeli consciousness by means of all the unelected power hubs in the country: academia, the media, the justice system, the welfare systems, government bureaucracy and the defense system.

Until now, these forces were smart enough to blur their statements and outsmart the public. Instead of saying that the family is bad, they would say: “Everything constitutes a family” (in which case nothing constitutes a family).

Instead of saying that it is bad to have children, they would say that we must safeguard them. (In other words, detach them from their parents).

Michaeli simply said these things directly. “The core family is the most dangerous place for children… and it must be broken apart”. Yes, she really said it.