Playing to Win in Gaza

As the Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip nears the end of its second week, two things are clear: first, that it will come to some sort of internationally brokered end; and second, that it will end thus because there is no other end that Israel will countenance. This is not to say that there is no other end Israel wants, but it cannot have what it wants — Hamas will neither be destroyed nor neutered — and so the question of the end is a question of what it may have. For all the vitriol the Jewish state receives every time it attacks those who attack it — be it a Vatican hierarch invoking the Holocaust(!), or the United Nations harrumphing about the sanctity of its property — the ground truth is that Israel lacks the bloody-mindedness to end things as it might, and as its enemies certainly would.

To illustrate this, we must look to the terrible numbers from the field of battle — or rather, the alleyways and gutted apartment blocks wherein Hamas chooses to fight. For all the grief and horror at the deaths of “civilians” in Gaza (and the word must be in quotes, not because there are none, but because apart from the young they are so tremendously difficult to definitively identify), the cold fact is that the IDF has done an admirable job of safeguarding the lives of the Gazan population. If, after nearly two weeks of modern war, only a few hundred out of just under 1.5 million, in a region with an average density of over ten thousand persons per square mile, are dead — and if the number of dead includes combatants — this is nothing short of extraordinary. To state this is not to belittle or dismiss the very real and legitimate horror of the dead, nor the grief that their loved ones endure. A keening mother in Gaza is comforted by the assiduousness of the IDF no more than the grieving mother in Colorado is soothed by America’s historically low casualties in Iraq. In acknowledging the commendably few deaths in Gaza, we must also acknowledge the lonely black pit of loss that renders the death of one indistinguishable from the end of the world.

The careful restraint of Israel at war is not a regrettable thing, except in the realm of amoral power politics: indeed, it is a signal reason we of the non-Jewish, non-Israeli world ought to prefer Israel to its neighbors in sentiment and policy. However much the Muslim population of Israel and Palestine might resent its fate under Jewish rule, it nonetheless enjoys a better existence than Jewish populations under Muslim rule — which is to say, it has a meaningful existence to speak of. Again, this is not to ignore the baleful realities of that existence, which is, after all, rife with petty humiliations ranging from the insensate bureaucracy of movement controls to the banal abuse of fanatic Zionists. Yet if the Xhosa have not exterminated the Afrikaners, nor the Southern blacks the Southern whites, why demand or expect less of the Palestinians? Are they not, to borrow a phrase, men and brothers? Why, then, the peculiar degradation of culture and impulse that compels a relentless violence? The notion, so fondly adhered to by so many, that both sides in this war are moral equals, or at least equally morally degraded, is a fiction that rests upon an invincible ignorance of history.

There are a thousand illustrative anecdotes to call upon, but one suffices: that of the Israeli conquest of Jerusalem’s center in 1967. For the preceding twenty years of Muslim rule, Jews were barred from their holy sites therein, and the majority of the Jewish graves in the millennia-old cemetery on the Mount of Olives were destroyed or paved over. By contrast, when the Israeli infantry drove the Jordanians from the medieval warren of the Old City, the conquering General Uzi Narkiss refused a clerical plea to reclaim the Muslim Dome of the Rock — and Moshe Dayan ordered its administration handed to the Muslim Waqf. To imagine that Israel’s enemies would treat it as well is to indulge in fantasy. We have little data on the fate of Jews and Jewish sites in Muslim hands after 1967, but what have seen — notably in the 2000 ransacking of Joseph’s Tomb — justifies no hope.

If we prefer Israel, then, it falls to us to ensure that its deficiencies in the amoral realm of power politics are not fatal. The long-term survival of the Jewish state is a factor neither of righteousness nor morality, except inasmuch as that survival is righteous or moral. We may forgive Israelis for believing this, but we ourselves need not. Rather, it befits Americans to enable Israel to survive and flourish without subsuming its behavior to those imperatives. Precisely because we do not wish for Israel to conclude, as it rationally might, that its survival depends upon the end of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim habitation of old Palestine, we should conduct our policy now with an eye toward precluding that conclusion.

This is easier said than done, and it may not be do-able at all, but it has the virtue of being the moral course. We can do our best to make the coming ersatz peace something more than it will be; we can foster economic development for the great masses of idle Palestinian labor; we can cooperate in the strangling of fanatic movements like Hamas; and we can demand more of Palestine than it demands of itself.

The ultimate success of these efforts, though, is out of our hands. In the end, the Palestinian polity is the creation of Palestinians. This is simultaneously as it should be, and the most dreadful portent for the future. Yielding the great dream — of the end of Zionism, of the destruction of the Jews, of the ravaging of their holy places — makes sense only in the definitive demonstration of its unattainability. The enemies of Israel are unpersuaded, having seen the Zionist state yield mile upon mile in the past decade, having seen Israel lose a war in Lebanon, having compared the raw facts of demographics, and having seen the world weary of this Jewish statelet and its inconvenient struggles. They rightly believe they will be a majority in time. They rightly believe their material weakness is not perpetual. They rightly believe that Israel wants to stop playing this game: and so they play to win it.


1. My knowledge of civilization science is based on professor Feliks Koneczny books. He doesn't consider Mexico to be separate civilization...

2. You should demand the end of subsiding policy in first place. This is the source of problems for sure.

3. So, you think that British did wrong opening border to Eastern European workers? I'm confused here, how on earth would you control whether one is atheist or not? In your vision of the state, state apparatus would be nearly all-knowing? You will not have to worry about socialists if your state will not offer social care. The ball is one the American side.

4. If you want to educate yourself on the issue of 'democracy vs monarchy', I recommend Hans Herman Hoppe or Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Basically democratic state could be compared to state owned company and monarchy to private owned company.

I would be hardly satisfied by less people voting. Although this is better especially at the beginning, however with time number of voters will grow and democracy will be fully restored. It could be compared to professor Cyril Parkinson theories about governmental bodies. it is growing and growing and losing all influence (Like voters in the US, firstly just some, later almost everybody, today they have basically nothing to say.). So their competences are handed to smaller bodies (leftist political establishment). The same mechanism working inside of political establishment as well. This is not my task to give power to the left.


I'm not going to argue with you about true nature of Mexicans, because I don't know any. However I think that something is wrong here. Thus I would like to make some comments.

1. "Civilization" is a big word and I'm afraid that you confuse it with "culture". Different cultures of the same civilization might be less or more advanced. I think that similar number of Hindu, Jewish or Muslim immigrants would help you to feel the difference.

2. Amoral familism according to online definition is caused by poverty and was firstly noticed in Italy... I think that we will agree that Italy is definitely part of western civilization.

3. Of course I agree that democratism is responsible for this outcome. I mean not only immigration itself but also all following reactions.

4. Some protectionism is needed indeed I don't advise you to bring half of Iran to the US. However your analogy is simply wrong. Slavery is obviously against liberty while allowing some kind of immigrants just increase competition.

5. Would you support open borders policy toward such states like Poland, Slovenia or three Baltic states? They don't have much civilizationally different Muslims, Jews or Gypsies. Neither crime rate or poverty is a problem. So?


How you define American nation? Ronduck probably would say something about white protestants. As a monarchist I have great distance to all this national craziness. I accept the fact that some social processes cannot be reversed and I would wish all of this to be concentrated on positive matters rather than negative. I think that democratic originated nationalism on both sides play a great role in this conflict. As far as democratism is concentrated I don't see any way to resolve this problem.

@ Monarchist

Thanks for your reply.

1. The late Samuel Huntington, a more learned and less opinionated person than I, defined Latin-American civilization, including Mexico, as separate from Western civilization. I think that is proper and correct.

2. The Italians given to amoral familism are the Mafiosi. They are not good immigrants. Most Italians do not fall into that category. You are correct that the sociological category transcends civilizations.

4. Slavery is against liberty, yes, but my understanding of the opposition to slavery among Northern workingmen was that they believed their opportunities were diminished by the presence of a pool of slave laborers whose cheapness was subsidized by laws. Northern whites were not fighting for blacks but for their own future on this continent. Cheap Mexican labor is subsidized by the welfare, education, and criminal justice systems. Even if it were not, Americans could legitimately object to large numbers of foreigners entering their territory. That is called an invasion, whether the feckless rulers of the country call it that or not.

5. Huntington places Poland and the Baltic nations in Western civilization. That is good enough for me. I am very positive towards the Poles in particular after reading Sienkiewicz. However, the numbers would have to be managed to have only a positive impact on the natives, and there would need to be an individual assessment regarding motivation in coming here, willingness and ability to adapt to the culture, political inclinations, education, capital, and health. No socialists, please. And no atheists.


I accept the fact that some social processes cannot be reversed...

If the economic downturn gets bad you may get a monarchy in your country. Whatever form of government you have, you will still have to leave the European Union if you want to be free.

What is monarchy?

Ronduck and Monarchist: What is monarchy but aggrandizement of the executive arm of government at the expense of the others? To some extent the American republic is an elected monarchy with broad suffrage and term limits. Throughout the 20th c. the executive further aggrandized itself and the trend shows no sign of slowing. I know Monarchist objects to the breadth of the suffrage; I don't know if he would be satisfied with a smaller number of electors, or if he requires royal families to provide candidates for lifelong terms to be succeeded by other persons of royal blood according to certain rules.


Ronduck is not one of the original signers of the DOI or the Constitution, as far as a I know.

Monarchist the Catholic Church has reconciled itself to democtratic and republican principles operating in the poltical sphere of our lives, I'm not sure how you reconcile the level of your extreme hostility to them with the Church's acceptance of them?


Western civilization formed to the wide extend by the RCC used to respect separation of the state and the church. Vatican could hardly justify any interference in these matters, as far as I know the Bible says nothing about preferred political system. Beside of that Vatican would not have enough influence to push its vision on political establishment. Their mission is to evangelise no matter what is the political system. Of course they criticize pathologies also no matter what is political system.

Obviously you would find some progressive clergy openly advocating for democracy and even for socialism. Hopefully pope Benedict who seems to be wise person will handle them.
Something else would be if Vatican would decide to democratize the church itself. I would not participate in such circus for one moment!


Of course they criticize pathologies also no matter what is political system.

They do not do that here in America, even if they do that in your country.


You correctly identified the existence of western alzheimers but failed to mention the equally worrying phenomenon of islamist 'Tourettes'. ;-)



I still would rather think that most western leftists who support Hamas are ignorant of its methods and are ignorant of Islam altogether.


They have been deceived, they do not know what they do...(I hope)


What has deceived them?

Their falling away from Christianity, their ideology (the spirit of multiculturalism), alzheimer mentality,  money and islamists that have been embedded in the media...just a few things that come to mind.


RE: "Playing to Win in Gaza"

One cannot but commend the precision and restraint of the IDF. It has sent its ground forces into a heavily built-up and densely populated urban area to engage in close-quarters combat with Hamas irregulars that outnumber the Israelis up to a ratio of 2.5:1. Given that the IDF has killed a possible maximum of 500 irregulars, and that each Hamas "brigade" comprises 1,200 personnel, the IDF cannot be accused of a war of attrition. Whereas the mass media emphasize pictures and video clips of corpses, explosions, etc., and various commentators cite Israel for war crimes, the numbers tell a very different story. They tell a story of a military operation clearly intended to target the Hamas leadership, arms caches and smuggling routes, and Qassam launch sites. Moreover, in deference to global and particularly Islamic opinion, the IDF is deliberately risking the lives of its personnel to avoid civilian casualities and collateral damage. Can the American "record" in Afghanistan and Iraq hold up to such scrutiny?


1. Your claims that the RCC want to take over the US is ridiculous. RCC is not interested to "take over" any specific country. The goal of the Vatican is to bring every human being to the church of the Christ.

2. Blame-Catholic agenda is definetely pathetic.

Catholics (and Jews)

Monarchist and Ronduck: The Catholic Church in the U.S.A., as an institution, is as destructive of American nationality as the Democratic Party, AFL-CIO, SEIU, the teachers unions, and the meat-packing and construction industries. All want to bring in Mexicans to add to their respective clienteles, or in the case of industry, their labor pools. Cardinal Mahoney in the U.S.A.--an Irish Catholic--is the worst of the worst, in this regard, using Christian charity to justify open borders. Open borders are destructive of civil order and nationality, and therefore contrary to Christian charity.

That does not affect my view that Catholics or the Catholic Church deserve no special blame for the prevalence of destructive left-liberal ideology in Western societies.

Armor and Gilbert de Bruycker: This is not really a propos, but I though you would find it of interest--Lawrence Auster's attempt to formulate a reasoned view of the "Jewish problem" in the U.S.A. Maybe you too will find it reasonable:

"Here in a nutshell is the approach I advocate to the Jewish problem:

"1. To the extent that Jews as Jews pursue an anti-Western or anti-national agenda (for example, when Jews state that as Jews they are committed to open borders, or the advance of minorities at the expense of the majority, or the transformation of America into a universal nation, or the continued dismantlement of America's Christian culture), they should be publicly confronted on that. It is legitimate to criticize and oppose the anti-majoritarian Jewish agenda as such, just as it is legitimate to oppose a harmful black agenda or a harmful Hispanic agenda as such.

"2. Jews who make it clear that their primary identification and loyalty is to Jews or minorities, rather than to America and its historic majority culture, should be told that they have the right to live and prosper in America, but not to speak for America or to have an influential role in its culture and politics.

"3. Peaceful and brotherly relations between the Jews and the white gentile majority is possible on the basis of the following quid pro quo: the Jews tolerate and respect the majority and do not seek to undermine it; and the majority tolerates and respects the Jews.

"4. As I've said many times, the initiation of such an approach, like the solution to many other problems we face, depends on the restoration of a white gentile majority culture that believes in itself, and stands up for itself in a firm but civilized way, and asserts its natural leadership position in America."


I don't understand this hysteria with Mexicans in the US. I fully understand opposition to civilizationally alien immigration. However whether Mexicans really fit to this category? No, they are not! Perhaps their culture is less advanced but still they belong to the same civilization. So, you sound like a protectionist. More competition on the job market is good. Some lazy British also claim that Poles steal their jobs. Pathetic. I would love Poland opened border with Ukraine and Belarus. We need more competition here. Of course immigrants and natives as well should be stripped of any social grants. If this happen then only hard-working will be attracted and this would be a very positive outcome.


The Jews have plenty of influences in media outlets. They are just typical leftist and dislike Israel for being nationalist and theocratic.


I don't think you do understand. "Hysteria" mischaracterizes the reaction. Well, unless we give too much credence to Runduck's ravings.

At the core of the reaction to the Hispanic "movement of peoples" into the United States is a sense of a Faustian betrayal among the average American citizen by the country's elites, Democrat and Republican. KO left out the Republican and conservative contributions to the selling out of the nation to crass economic and political interests on one hand, and misplaced, and ultimately dishonest appeals, and pandering to certain notions of Christian charity.

In many respects the new arrivals are as much victims as the American population itself. What are they being promised and what are they being enticed by, the American Dream? And what does that Dream consist of today? The silent witness of over 45 million matyrs requires that we answer that question honestly.

On another forum I suggested that Governor Palin should have attended Mass at the Shrine of Our Lady Guadalupe the Sunday before the election. I am sure Democratic pundits would have been howling at the crescent moon, I would have loved to see SNL skit on the trip. I am sure charges of pandering by both left and right pundits would have barraged the McCain-Palin camp. I am also sure that if the Governor would have been guided by the faith she professes and acted and spoke accordingly, she would have her hand on the Bible on January 20th on Capitol Hill, midwife to the rebirth a great nation.

Mexico Is Civilizationally Alien

Monarchist: Mexico is civilizationally alien. The myth of Mexico is of a new people combining the Indian and Spanish cultures. The Indian part could not be more alien if it were Zulu or Andaman Islander. The mixed part, the religious, economic, and political culture, is also unassimilable. Sociologists characterize Mexican culture as "amoral familism." If you're not in the family, anything goes. Only the European segment of Mexican society is compatible with American society.

A small number of Mexicans are really Americans, those who settled in the current U.S.A. in colonial or pre-acquisition times. They belong here as long as they are loyal. A few have immigrated prior to 1965. They were loyal, Cesar Chavez mobilizing his workers to assist with Operation Wetback to repatriate illegals. The numbers represented by those groups do not threaten Americans economically or culturally. But the ballooning numbers in the last few decades have resulted in huge Mexican enclaves where Spanish is the language of all business and whites are strangers. Extremists advocate a re-conquest. The majority appears to oppose normal border controls, which is treasonous. We Americans have simply lost or given up territory. And through the magic of democracy, as I'm sure you appreciate, the treasonous open border opinion is taken into account by would-be majority parties.

Some protectionism is legitimate. Is it protectionist to outlaw slavery, although a slaveowner can get some jobs done at a lower cost? No. Nor is it protectionist to keep out groups that will compete for wages on the basis of creating high-density ethnic enclaves that become no-go areas for the natives, besides providing host populations for criminal gangs and diseases. The infra-structure that makes possible low-wage labor pools has huge negative effects on American society. It is totally undesirable. We need to close the border, increase the deportation rate, let attrition do its job, and work on assimilating those who are legal.


Yes, Steyn makes excellent points regarding the manner the islamic world reacts.

How unfortunate that the western world is affected by an ever worsening case of alzheimers...

Western media and governments are unwittingly becoming the proxies of the islamists.


How charitable of you, Steiner. Don't you think there is conscious agreement between left-liberals and Islamic activists regarding the evil West, Jews, and Christianity?

The Catholic church is Evil

We see the same failure in USA, with racial issues in a country made of white, native american, black and hispanic people. There have been problems for centuries, and they'll last as long as such a situation will exist.

Prior to 1960 and the ascendance to the Presidency of our first Catholic, immigration, both legal and illegal was under control. Prior to attaining the presidency JFK had written a book praising unlimited immigration and as part of his term he wanted to open the floodgates, something achieved by his reprobate brother Ted. At the time America had less than 500,000 Hispanic Catholics, now we have about 45 million. Clearly the RCC wants to turn America into part of its' empire of failure in Latin America. During the election of 2008 Catholics of all stripes voted for the Obortion and now we have a Marxist president.

Clearkly, no free society wanting to maintian its' freedom or continue to exist should allow the Catholic hierarchy into its' territory.


Ronduck: The failure in our "liberal" culture is so general that I don't think we should single out Catholics for blame, though it may have been a mistake to let so many Irish Catholics into the U.S.A. over the years. Their resentment of the English and of the Scotch Irish protestants is a destructive force in our society, just as the overwhelming liberalism of Jews makes allowing the immigration of large numbers of Jews look like a mistake. But behold the leadership of the mainline, white Protestant churches--communists all! Behold the universities--totally communist-dominated! Look how many blacks voted for Obama, and how many women! What are we going to do, deport them all? Establish a middle-aged white-male conservative utopia? We are stuck with our fellow citizens, for better or worse, and meanwhile, Catholics and Jews provide some of the most able intellectual leadership for the patriotic cause. Why gratuitously insult our best friends? Like Capo on this website, for example? Conservative Catholics are a source of hope in Europe and the U.S.A. We need them to overcome their liberal and communist co-religionists, who are doubtless all heretics of one description or another, as liberal Jews and Protestants are renegades, too. Read the Sienkiewicz novels recommended by Takuan Seiyo, The Teutonic Knights and With Fire and Sword: starring non-liberal Polish Catholic warriors, fighting for Christ and Christian civilization!

The Nature of Evil

Thanks duckface for the insight.


Good going, you called out the loonies and duckface came screaming out.

Recommended reading to send Ronduck out of his ducking mind:

"Puritan Conquistadors" by Jorge Canizares-Esguerra Stanford University Press 2006

Let the loonies protest

Let the leftish loonies protest against Israël because Israel will do what it must do (and what christians/unbelievers in the ME/islamic world are unable to do): fight back against jihad and terror !

Forget the criticism of European politicians and 'journalists': Israels will to live confronts them with their own cowardness and self-destructive policy.

And the EU makes me sick: for 30 years now we are THE biggest sponsors of the so-called 'palestinians' and their terror-groups, mosques and radical schoolbooks. EU is also to blame for all this violence and misery.

Once more the multiculturalist failure

Beyond the israeli-palestinian issue, what we are saying is -once more- the complete failure of the multi-culturalist idea, and the necessity of a nationalistic point of view. When you try to merge different people, whether differing by race, religion, language or anything you want, there's ALLWAYS conflict.
It's what I name "the identity and homogeneity" principle. Like it or not, human beings belong
to groups, and this groups need to be respected and last. This is simply a natural necessity of human being.
Politically, this is turned into nation-states. There is conflict between Israelis and Palestinians simply because these two different people live together in a same territory. There will no peace until every group has it's own independant state, with homogeneous population.

We see the same failure in USA, with racial issues in a country made of white, native american, black and hispanic people. There have been problems for centuries, and they'll last as long as such a situation will exist.
We see the same too in France and Europe with immigration, where second and third generation of black and muslims immigrants are less integrated because they are not willing to give up their identity.

The stupidity of our politicians with their mad globalist ideology is criminal, because it will bring violence and civil/racial wars.