1967 revisited - On the Seventh Day They Rested

In 1967, in a short six day span, Israel brought Egypt, Jordan and Syria to their knees in a three front war. This war could have been avoided had the United Nations brokered a peace between Israel and its neighbors that then Prime Minister, Golda Mier had begged them to do. This plea for peace on the side of Israel took place on October 10, 1960. Immediately following, the UN General Assembly understood Egypt's refusal to recognize the Jewish State, and in 1963 the Arab League (members of the United Nation Security Council), formed the Palestinian Army, under the direction of Yassir Arafat. The world decried any reaction from Israel and as attacks increased upon its citizens; the Isreali's continued to beg the UN for intervention - they only wanted to live in peace. Once again, this was ignored, and Israel was asked to basically put up with the continual assault from its neighbors.

On May 15, 1967, the Egyptians moved troops to Israel's borders, Syria did the same and on June 5th, Jordan attacked Israel, spurred on by the presence of Egyptian warplane. Still Israel rested. With pressure from the UN and the world against them, an increase in attacks on their country and literally surrounded by hostile neighbors they decided to take a stand. In 6 days the Israeli forces captured territory and defeated the forces against them. It was a resounding and humiliating defeat.

A little history lesson might be in order at this point in time because, once again, Israel is left with its back agaisnt the wall, and with no support from any nation (besides once again, the United States President's assertion that Israel has a right to defend itself) (In 1967 the President was Lyndon B. Johnson) the Israeli's will take a stand. They have the military capability to decimate their neighbors, a fact that is apparently lost on Iran and Syria. In addition, they have the will, desire and their peoples firmly behind this just cause.

In other words, they will be doing the world a favor when they decide to let loose and put their detractors in their place. As a body, the UN has been historically ineffective in brokering peace settlements (much like Jimmy Carter). With Iran in ashes and Syria in chains, the democracy in Iraq will stand more than a chance at success. In addition, the peoples of Iran will be in a position to work towards regime change and establish the democracy they crave. In the short term, Europe and the United States may pay more for a gallon of gas, but in the long term, the benefits will far outweigh any minor inconvenience those territories face.

History has a way of repeating itself; and those who study history are aware of mistakes they made in the past. The Israeli's are aware of history. In this respect, they will not allow another uprising from the ashes, and will take the steps necessary to finally insure peace in the region.

A funny thing happened last night; a phone call came through rather late and on the other end was a gentleman looking for my husband. He hadn't seen or spoken to him since 1973. Apparently, they used to parachute together, were best buddies, and he felt compelled to contact him. We began to talk generalities; and the main point was how similar the situation in Iraq had become to the situation in Viet Nam. It is not necessarily the fact that the two conflicts are similar. It is the fact that the press and one particular political party are affecting the outcome in Iraq in much the same way. It is a general consensus among these like-minded individuals and their families (i.e. branches of the military, retirees, veterans - approximately 50 million citizens of these United States), that we should "finish the job" and not let "press and politicians" dictate to the military.

As the November elections draw near, politician's such as Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich are predicating gains for the GOP. This could be attributed to party bravado, however, it may also be a direct result of listening to the people; not those that feel they are able to sway policy simply because they consider themselves to be "elite" and above it all.

Therefore, another interpretation of Hamilton and Jay's discourse regarding treason and the freedom of the press may be applied. The people may indeed decide. In the marketplace as well as in November.

Raising the question. Is anyone out there polling the military, veterans groups and their families? Anyone besides the GOP?

Alexander Hamilton on Freedom of the Press

From Letter #84:

"Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions maybe imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power, but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to ursurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power"

In the event one is not familiar with Alexander Hamilton; he co-authored a document entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America". Ironically, in that same letter he addressed the issue of Treason and its inclusion in the constitution (of that he was in favor, of freedom of the press, he was inclined to be concerned).

One may then propose that the honorable Hamilton was a bit clairvoyant in regards to his notion that powerful men, planning to ursurp the United States of America, would use the press as an instrument. Bill Keller and his ilk, must be aware of this fact.

Treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war (with a certainty this applies to the New York Times and others) documented by two witnesses to the fact. (How about millions of readers, is that clearly enough?)

Why is it then that these high crimes continue to be absolved based upon a one-line note in the Constitution; that, according to those who wrote the legal document, is not a free pass at all?