“He who has mercy on the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the merciful”

Our Sages Have it Right: By Moshe Feiglin

I have a lot of respect for Chief of Staff Eisencott. He projects the image of the regular soldier from Tiberias who plans to work quietly, get down to the root of problems and do what he understands needs to be done to prepare the IDF for the next war. I have publicly expressed my respect for him quite a few times. But his blunder last week when he negated the value that we learn from our Sages, “If someone comes to kill you, kill him first” will make all his efforts for naught and ruin all his plans.

The truth is that his words did not surprise me. First of all, because Eisencott amplifies the mentality prevalent in all circles of leadership in the State – particularly in the upper echelons of the security establishment. Second, because he already said something similar to me during war.

When Tel Aviv was being bombarded by rockets from Gaza for over a month two summers ago, I asked then Deputy Chief of Staff Eisencott at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee (in the presence of additional MKs):

“Tell me please, “Who is the enemy?”

Today’s Chief of Staff could not give a clear answer.

How can he possibly kill his enemy first if he cannot identify him?

It is impossible to win a battle without the value of “If someone comes to kill you, kill him first”. The words of the Chief of Staff and the Defense Minister do not reflect ethicality, but its very opposite. This is the same Defense Minister who, under pressure from the media, gave the order to torture minors. Now he is sermonizing about moral conduct toward terrorists who come to murder us. As our Sages say, “He who has mercy on the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the merciful”. It looks like our Sages had it right all along…

The grave significance of Eisencott and Ya’alon’s words is that the IDF, no matter how sophisticated it may be, is not capable of winning wars.

For he who has lost his identity – cannot identify his enemy.

And he who cannot identify his enemy cannot defeat him.

And when we don’t triumph, the war does not end.

And when the war doesn’t end – peace does not begin.

It really doesn’t matter how the young Arab terrorist with the scissors is apprehended. She is going to win because we have deposited the value of justice in her hands.

From Jewish Press, here.

On Economic Myths of Race and Gender

Paranoid Politics

 Amid all the media analyses of the prospects of each of the candidates in both political parties, there is a remarkably little discussion of the validity — or lack of validity — of the arguments these candidates are using.

It is as if what matters this election year is the fate of a relative handful of people— currently seven — running for their respective parties’ nominations. Meanwhile, the fate of the 320 million Americans who are going to be affected by the outcome of this year’s election fades into the background.

The fact that Hillary Clinton’s election prospects, for example, depend on her ability to get the black vote has been talked about in the media numerous times. But what about the fate of millions of black people, and how that will be affected by the way Hillary Clinton is trying to get their votes?

Her basic pitch to black voters is that they have all sorts of enemies and that blacks need her to protect them, which she is ready to do if they vote for her. In short, Hillary’s political fate depends on spreading fear and, if possible, paranoia.

Similar attempts to get the votes of women are based on conjuring up enemies who are waging a “war on women,” with Hillary again cast in the role of someone ready to come to their rescue, if they will give her their votes.

In both cases, rhetoric and repetition take the place of hard evidence. The closest thing to evidence being offered is that the average income of blacks is not the same as the average income of whites, and the average income of women is not the same as the average income of men.

But the average incomes of people in their twenties is usually lower than the average income of people in their forties — and by a greater amount than the income difference between women and men, or the income difference between blacks and whites. Does that mean that middle-aged people are enemies of young adults?

In countries around the world, and for centuries of recorded history, people living up in the mountains have usually been poorer than people living on the land below. Does this mean that people in the lowlands have somehow been robbing mountain people? Or does it mean that the circumstances of people living in mountains have usually been less promising than the circumstances of others?

If poverty among blacks is due to whites, why has the poverty rate among black married couples been in single digits every year since 1994, despite far higher poverty rates among other blacks? Do most white employers even know — or care — which blacks are married?

When the imprisonment rate of blacks with a college education is a fraction of the imprisonment rate of other blacks, does that mean that white cops check out the education of blacks before they decide to arrest them?

Or does it mean that blacks who have chosen one way of life have very different prospects than those who have chosen a very different way of life — as is true among whites, Asians, Hispanics and others?

Economic differences between women and men are not wholly due to personal choices, since only women have babies, and it is usually mothers who take time out from the job market to raise them.

When women work fewer hours per year than men and do not work continuously for as many years as men, how surprised should we be that the sexes have different incomes on average?

Anyone who is being serious — as distinguished from being political — would have to take many factors into account before saying that male-female income differences, or black-white differences, are due to people with identical qualifications and experience being paid differently.

Any number of studies, including studies by female scholars, have shot down the oft-repeated claim that women are paid less than men with identical work qualifications. But that will not stop that same bogus claim from being made repeatedly this election year.

What about blacks, women or others who believe the political hype? Will that help them improve their lives, or will it be anther counterproductive distraction for them and another polarization of society that helps nobody, except those who seeking votes? As for the media, they are covering the political contests, not the effects of the lies generated in these contests.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

חיי מדינה וחירות

בזכות גדילת הפריון העצומה שהביא הקפיטליזם נוצר מעמד ביניים רחב עם מספיק זמן פנוי להפגין למען ביטול הקפיטליזם.

תודה ל- Tamir Perl

7c1aa66cc80e47df6d89

התנועה הליברלית החדשה – מקסימום חופש מינימום כפייה

חדשות

בזכות גדילת הפריון העצומה שהביא הקפיטליזם נוצר מעמד ביניים רחב עם מספיק זמן פנוי להפגין למען ביטול הקפיטליזם.

תודה ל- Tamir Perl

מאתר התנועה הליברלית החדשה, כאן.