Thomas Sowell makes a brilliant point -- peace movements and their fellow-travellers lead to more war more frequently, not more peace.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East.

It is as I pointed out in a comment last night on another thread.

A more realistic end scenario is that it ends with Israel again caving into the international community's call to play nice -- and with the real aggressors (the so-called Palestinians) again being painted as the victims of injustice. That means security for another few years -- until the next time Israel caves into the latest demands of the international community to make concessions. That will set off a new round of the IDF engaging in vermin control -- and Israel being condemned for it.

It is unfortunate that Israel wil not be allowed to crush her foes compleely, for then we might see peace born out of the ashes of the defeat of Hamas and Hezbollah. Instead, these two groups will be permitted to lick their wounds and build up for the next round. Taht is teh pattern we have seen in the past, and which we will see in the future.

Such "peace movements" lead to a moral people giving up the will to "fight for King and Country" (to use the term from the infamous Oxford Union debate). The result is that those who have fewer scruples about engaging in a true war of aggression are encouraged and strengthened.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

While usually springing from the most noble of sentiments, such pacifism is generally the basis of false peace and real war.

Posted by: Greg at 05:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.