Full disclosure: with yesterday’s defeat of Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, this independent political commentator believes the American people lost a decent and experienced legislator. As I wrote in two previous posts here and here (the second of which the eminent Peggy Noonan agreed with), Lugar had a stand-out record of achievement in working across party lines to advance security policy that should have counted with voters more than ever in our terrorist age.

Today brought a strange reaction from the right, as pundits James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal  and John Tabin of the American Spectator characterized Lugar as ‘Sore Lugar.’ This turn of phrase might have been passably witty if indeed the Senator had exhibited even the slightest bad manners, sulkiness, unreasonableness, etc., in defeat, but having read the Senator’s reasoned and respectful statement–in which he laments, in polite and gentlemanly fashion–the dearth of bipartisanship and independent-thinking in Congress, I can’t see how this ridicule, or dismissal of the Senator’s stature, makes the remotest sense.

The perception that Lugar is being petulant may say more about his critics than about the Senator, and to my mind seems to help him argue his case. In his statement, Lugar warns that, in demanding near-total fealty from candidates to party-line ideologies, “Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives.  If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance.  Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.”

He also warns that, “Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents.   … But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents” and writes, “partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race … have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise.  If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years.  And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.”

Lugar’s tone is not “sore.” Might it be the case that, in viewing such admonition as un-statesmanlike, Lugar’s critics are simply reacting in thin-skinned fashion to criticism that cuts a little too close to the bone? Have conservatives begun to go the way of the left, whose members all too often react to legitimate criticism as if it were personal attack and discrimination?

Since when is it inappropriate for a statesman to warn Americans about potential pitfalls? Wasn’t it George Washington, our country’s greatest and original statesman, who warned Americans (I believe upon his retirement): “Beware foreign entanglements” –an admonition that partisan followers of President George W. Bush would have been well served to heed seriously, rather than following him naively, albeit with good intentions, into Iraq (as one who, with serious reservations, did support the Iraq policy and still believes this issue was and is not black and white, it is difficult for me to acknowledge the following, but on balance, from this vantage point, it would appear to have been a policy whose dangers and complexities were profoundly, tragically underestimated).

It’s a statesman’s job to share what he has learned, with humility and a sincere concern for the country. And at a time of terrible fractiousness, Dick Lugar  has tried to do so. His message: moderation can be a virtue, and compromise–of the principled variety, that requires genuine listening, and the ability to understand if not agree with the other’s point of view– is to be valued, not derided. People who understand this, who act with respect for others’ needs, without devaluing or subordinating their own needs–are successful in advancing useful policy, and often successful in life, particularly in relationships. Extremists and hard-drivers who stick stubbornly to their guns no matter what often win life’s elections and other battles, such as climbing the ladder to career success, due to their tenacity and single-minded focus, but tend often to be losers at relationships. To confuse ability to compromise and perceive nuance with spinelessness or lack of principle is the error of the fanatic, the extremist, or even of the simply–and ultimately, the foolishly– doctrinaire.

Extremist fervor can–in service to a moral cause–move mountains and change the world. When Patrick Henry proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death!” his was not the voice of the moderate.

But after the revolution’s over, what makes day-to-day life work is compromise. Adherence to principle without the ability to compromise is like passion without compatibility. Without people who have the general–and emotional–intelligence to fully grasp complex issues and also to grasp opposing points of view, and to work with others to hammer out and implement solutions–the country is destined to move toward more and more fractious, polarized politics, and possibly, in time, toward serious instability. That is what Lugar is warning about. Of course, disagreement and controversy are part of a healthy free society. But moderates help ensure the center holds. When moderation itself is viewed as suspect, and a statesman can’t even make a straightforward statement about the very real hazards of extreme ideological polarization without being labeled “Sore Lugar,” one has to wonder what the future holds.

Maybe all this blind partisanship will have the boomerang effect of producing more independent voters each year - which certainly seems to be where we’re headed.

In which case, Lugar’s admonition to his fellow Republicans in particular will have been prescient.

In April, the federal government notched its first budget surplus since President Obama took office, according to today’s news.

Too bad it would appear that American families aren’t seeing any such surplus.

I’m no Adam Smith, but one does not need to be an economist to note it seems fishy for the media to celebrate this surplus when, by objective accounts, the American family is economically worse off than at any time since 1993.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of September, 2011, despite an inflation-adjusted decrease in the typical American family’s income to levels lower than any time since 1996, and an increase in the fraction of Americans living in poverty (a higher percentage than at any time since 1993), there has been no narrowing of the gap between rich and poor during Obama’s tenure as President.

From the Wall Street Journal (September 2011):

Meanwhile, the gap between the best-off and worst-off Americans remained largely unchanged. The top fifth of households accounted for 50.2% of all pre-tax income; the bottom two-fifths got 11.8%. In 1999, the top fifth claimed 49.4% and the bottom got 12.5% of the income.

The Census Bureau said 15.1% of Americans were living below the poverty line, set at $22,314 for a family of four in 2010. That’s up from 14.3% last year and from 12.5% in 2007, before the recession. The official poverty rate overestimates the number of people living in poverty because it doesn’t count many government anti-poverty programs, such as subsidized housing, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

So, a higher proportion and larger number of Americans are living in poverty than than they were during George Bush’s presidency. And it turns out that this general decrease in standard of living has not been accompanied by any significant narrowing of  the gap between rich and poor. Everybody’s just got less, including the poor.

But on paper, there’s a federal government surplus, and that’s what media (at least some outlets) choose to celebrate.

Sounds like socialism at its worst.

Hey, does the great Peggy Noonan read www.heatherrobinson.net by chance?

Last week, I weighed in on Indiana’s heated Republican  primary race between veteran Senator Richard Lugar and the state’s Republican Treasurer Richard Mourdock, and this week, Noonan did the same.

Noonan analyzed the race in her (as always) gorgeous prose, and with a depth of political knowledge that only a many-decades-savvy veteran speechwriter, politico and columnist could possess. While I would not claim to have highlighted my points as artfully or against such a rich backdrop of experience as Ronald Reagan’s star speechwriter, Noonan and I did zero in on several of the same themes: Lugar’s experience in contrast to that of Mourdock, and Lugar’s real record of achievement in the crucial area of national security.

Morever, we made similar points about Lugar’s effectiveness at working with others to execute sound policy that might not have always grabbed headlines but laid the foundation for a safer, more responsible future. Noonan wrote, “He’s fought many fights to keep bad policy from being imposed. (Unfortunately, there’s never a memorial to the bad bill that didn’t happen.) He’s waded into serious policy issues, such as disarmament, that get little credit but are crucial.” And I wrote, “Lugar co-authored the Nunn-Lugar program, which dismantled more than 7,500 nuclear warheads, more than 1,400 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, 155 bombers, and 32 nuclear submarines in the former Soviet Union during the years immediately following its collapse. The program also upgraded security at 24 strategic sites. (This work was incredibly far-sighted and absolutely crucial given the possibility that enemies of Israel and the U.S. could have gotten a hold of this stuff). To the extent that the Russians have not already sold nuclear weapons and WMD to Islamic terrorists (fingers crossed), we may very well have to thank Dick Lugar for reaching across the aisle to do this absolutely vital work.”

If I do say so myself (and to the eminent Ms. Noonan), our points are well taken. For all the justified concern about over-spending, runaway bureaucracy, and Washington fat cats, there are a few politicians there who have quietly and diligently accomplished important things. In the case of Lugar, because one can’t prove a negative, it is tricky to explain that without his foresight and work on issues such as buying up nuclear weapons and WMD that were sitting around the former Soviet Union, it is likely that some of that stuff might have wound up in the hands of Islamist terrorists.

One point Noonan made that I did not, however, is that, to the extent that tea party activists have raised awareness about runaway spending and lack of foresight by Dems and Repubs alike, this close race will serve to reinforce in Lugar, if the voters of Indiana send him back to Washington, the imperative to return to conservative principles (cut over-spending that, while it might feel good and please some of the people, is borrowing unfairly against our children’s future).

Cutting out that practice should be a manageable imperative for the already sober-minded Lugar.

As I put it, I’m no Hoosier, but I’ll be rooting for him May 8. Or as Noonan put it, “They should save the old guy. He has value.”

From The Algemeiner
by HEATHER ROBINSON

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who met recently with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is being used as a “tool of Iran,” and Iran is using Iraq as a way station for transporting fighters and weapons to Syria to support the regime of dictator Bashar al Assad, according to former Iraqi Parliamentarian Mithal al-Alusi.

These are just two of the controversial assertions Alusi has made in interviews during April, presenting a picture of his country as becoming increasingly dominated by Iran since the U.S. troop withdrawal in December.

Alusi, who served two terms in Iraq’s Parliament and has been an outspoken advocate of normalized relations between Iraq and Israel, said earlier this month that Iran’s agents are transporting materials that appear to be weapons on “buses” to Syria via Iraq. It is just the latest, he charges, in a litany of Iranian abuses against his country and its people including money-laundering, sponsoring of terrorism, and bribery of Iraqi politicians, all of which have intensified, he says, since the U.S. troop withdrawal.

Alusi, a Sunni Muslim, has a history of voicing controversial views, as well as of making decisions that have frequently angered extremists.

In 2004, while serving as a leader in Iraq’s national commission for de-Ba’athification, he traveled to Israel to attend a counter-terrorism conference. Upon his return, terrorists murdered his two sons, Ayman, 30, and Gamal, 22, and one of their bodyguards in revenge for Alusi’s decision to travel to Israel. Minutes after the attack, he told reporters, “Even if these terrorists try to kill me again, peace is the only solution. Peace with Israel is the only solution for Iraq. Peace with everybody, but no peace for the terrorists.”

Elected to Iraq’s Parliament as an independent in 2005, he promoted counter-terrorism cooperation among Iraq, Israel, and other democracies and decried Iran’s interference in allegedly peddling influence with Iraqi politicians.

A maverick in Iraqi politics, Alusi has frequently been ahead of the curve. In 2006, he told this reporter that Iran was supporting both sides of the Iraqi insurgency—a claim that was controversial at the time but was ultimately confirmed by U.S. intelligence sources.

In February, he told this reporter that Iraq’s Central Bank was processing hundreds of millions of dollars a day more than usual, and that, according to sources within the bank, Iran’s agents were behind this financial maneuvering. He also said that, according to sources within the Iraqi intelligence community, the same individuals who were  “buying hundreds of millions of dollars in cash” from Iraq’s Central Bank were arranging for these dollars to be carried from Iraq into Syria, and then transported to Iran in order to skirt the U.S.-led sanctions.

“We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in cash going in to Syria–in suitcases–and then it goes to Iran,” he said at the time.

In early April, it was reported that the Central Bank of Iraq had tightened its clampdown on its sales of dollars – due to concerns that buyers were using them to launder money and circumvent U.S.-led sanctions against Iran and Syria.

Last week Alusi provided more examples of what he characterized as large-scale Iranian interference in Iraq that he believes are intended to pave the way for Iranian domination of the Mideast.

One example he cited of Iran’s alleged interference is the establishment of several banks recently in Iraq that he said “have the right to buy U.S. or Iraqi dollars from the Iraqi Central Bank.” He said that “Iranian intelligence” has set up these banks so Iran’s agents can skirt the clampdown and continue laundering money. Because banks in Iraq are not regulated in the same way as U.S. banks are, it is easier to set up new ones without scrutiny, he said.

“In Iraq, [if] you have 2.3 million dollars you can make a bank,” he said. “Iranian intelligence did this. There are a few private banks in Iraq, and mostly they belong to Iraqi politicians and Iranian intelligence.”

Moreover, Iran funds militias inside Iraq that conduct terrorist operations, and have stepped up their terrorism against Iraqis since the U.S. troop withdrawal, according to Alusi.

“All of the terrorists are from Syria, Iran, or Hezbollah – and they are killing people on the street,” he said.

Alusi said the Iraqi government is under-reporting casualties.

“Sometimes the real number of people killed is 50, 60 more [than what Iraq’s government reports],” Alusi said. “Does the U.S. embassy know that? Of course.”

In addition, Alusi said Iranian-trained, Iraqi militias are being “transported” to Syria, under orders from Tehran, to “help” Syrian security in a government-waged crackdown that has claimed the lives of 9,000 Syrians since last year.

Numerous members of the current Iraqi Parliament are taking money from Iran in exchange for supporting Iran’s positions regarding Syria’s crackdown and other issues, and for their compliance in allowing Iran to turn Iraq into a way station for weapons and militia transport, according to Alusi. He added that several years ago, people he believes to be Iranian agents offered him money to stop speaking up about these issues, but he has declined the money.

“If I said, ‘Iran is good,’ I would receive a few million dollars, and all would be good for me,” he said. “I would be powerful and very famous in the government. [But] I don’t want to do that. This [attempted bribery] is a kind of terrorizing, a kind of way of saying, ‘You have no choice.’”

Many Iraqi politicians are afraid to reject Iran’s alleged bribes, according to Alusi.

“My people, I believe they are good,” he said. “Iraqi politicians—many of them—either are under Iranian control, or they have problems. If you are against them they are fighting you and kicking you into a corner, if they don’t kill you.”

In February, Alusi survived an assassination attempt by two armed gunmen.

He resists caving in to Iran’s and its extremist supporters’ agenda because he has already lost so much, he said.

“Maybe because I lost my sons, maybe because of that,” he refuses to cooperate, he said. “[But] can I tell other politicians …‘Let them kill your family?’ They are afraid.”

Alusi would like to see President Obama acknowledge that all is not well in Iraq, and to “take his historic responsibility” to stand up to Iran, he said.

“When the U.S. says, ‘Everything is OK in Iraq,’ we Iraqis are saying, ‘My God, we are being killed. What is OK, that we are being killed? What is OK, that the terrorists are more active than before?’”

He argued that the U.S. troop withdrawal sent Iran a signal that it could have its way with Iraq.

“The U.S. has told the Iranians, ‘Now you are free to do what you want.’”

He is not against the Iranian people.

“Iranians are normal human beings,” he said. “But I am against the regime.”

Alusi issued a plea to the U.S. President to “Stop the Iranian nuclear program, terrorist program, and missiles program.”

If Iran can be stopped, human rights and democracy can still have a future in the region, he maintained.

“I am an optimist,” he said. “Can they control us? No. They are rubbish … Please Mr. Obama, do not be afraid [of] the mullahs … If we do nothing, terrorists will go further and further. We are losing Iraq to the hands of Iran and Hezbollah, to fascists. We paid a huge price, many Iraqis did, and Americans did. The only thing that will change the situation is if the White House wakes up. I am Arab. I am Muslim. We have to fight for the new generation. We are not afraid. Why should you be afraid?”

Six-term incumbent Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar (pictured above) is facing off in a close race against upstart challenger Richard Mourdock, the state treasurer, who is, according to one news site “running to Lugar’s right with tea-party backing.”

Mourdock may have an uphill battle in trying to “out-conservative” the venerable Lugar, a Capitol Hill denizen who has fought like a tiger for Israel, against nuclear proliferation, and for other important foreign policy priorities over the course of the past several decades with noteworthy leadership and creativity.

Last week National Review’s Corner cited a document Lugar’s campaign has released revealing Mourdock’s conservative credentials aren’t so pristine: apparently in 1992 Mourdock, then a Republican candidate in Indiana’s 8th Congressional District, supported the Fairness Doctrine. That’s a strong indicator Mourdock probably isn’t the conservative purist he has positioned himself to be (a misnomer if ever there was one, The Fairness Doctrine–as resurrected in 2009–sought to impose on radio and TV broadcasts the imperative to air both liberal and conservative views in every show. That might have kinda worked in the 1950’s when only three TV networks existed, but in a world of virtually unlimited media outlets, dictating content is unnecessary to ensure “fairness.” Rather, it seemed like a transparent attempt by left-wingers to muzzle conservative talk radio, and as such, an attack on free speech). I am an independent who found the attempt to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine” more obnoxious than Michael Savage on his worst day and have not met an independent, much less a conservative, or even a principled liberal, who didn’t see through it.

Apparently Mourdock = Mr. Softee on legislation that would repeal penalties for companies that hire undocumented workers (according to the campaign questionnaire, he took no position. Is that sort of like voting “present?”)Lugar, meanwhile, while making no claims to be an arch-conservative, has consistently advanced security-minded foreign policy during his decades in the Senate with noteworthy success.

Let’s revisit a few of his bona fides:

Lugar is on record having pressed the Obama Administration to impose tough, meaningful sanctions against the Iranian regime and businesses that deal with it. Despite now taking credit for imposing tough sanctions, President Obama had to be pressed by both houses of Congress to pass meaningful sanctions and was never a leader in doing so.

Lugar has gone above and beyond signing on to letters and going with the bipartisan majority in pressing the Prez to actually do something other than talk tough about how Iran’s getting a bomb is “unacceptable” to him.

For instance, Lugar is co-sponsoring The Iran Certification and Reporting Bill, (S. 2058). Obama critics take note: while the President was talking tough, apparently one of his executive agencies, the Department of Energy (DOE), was selling oil to at least two companies that were “engaged in business or trading activity with Iran.” Guess where DOE was getting the oil from that wound up in the coffers of Iran’s trading buddies? America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). That’s the oil we are supposed to keep in reserve in case of a global cataclysm/emergency. Nice, Mr. President.

Stuff like this makes me wonder why more Jews aren’t planning to vote for Obama and, as he asked of them at the AIPAC conference in March, judge him by his deeds, not words, regarding Israel (that was sarcasm). The reality is, his words, although arguably overly-critical of Israel, are a whole lot prettier than his deeds. Of course, this isn’t one of his deeds, it’s a deed of an agency of the federal government. It’s not like he’s in charge for heaven’s sake (yes, that was definitely sarcasm).

But most voters, including educated Jewish voters who care about Israel, remain enthralled by the President’s voice and manner, and as far as his administration’s less overt deeds, aren’t really paying too much attention. Thankfully Dick Lugar has been.

Here are just a couple others of Lugar’s achievements regarding Israel and Jewish causes, as well as advancing peace through strength around the world:1) Lugar co-sponsored Senate Bill 1048, the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011. This bill expands the circle of foreign companies that would be subject to sanctions based on transactions with Iranian entities.

2) Going further back, Lugar was instrumental in pressing the Soviets to liberalize their laws restricting Jewish emigration.

3) Lugar co-authored the Nunn-Lugar program, which dismantled more than 7,500 nuclear warheads, more than 1,400 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, 155 bombers, and 32 nuclear submarines in the former Soviet Union during the years immediately following its collapse. The program also upgraded security at 24 strategic sites. (This work was incredibly far-sighted and absolutely crucial given the possibility that enemies of Israel and the U.S. could have gotten a hold of this stuff). To the extent that the Russians have not already sold nuclear weapons and WMD to Islamic terrorists (fingers crossed), we may very well have to thank Dick Lugar for reaching across the aisle to do this absolutely vital work.

I’m all for the Tea Party as an expression of popular will and discontent with Washington insider politics. But there is something to be said for experience, and Lugar–derided by some as a ‘RINO’–has a solid record of achievement in advocating peace through strength via meaningful policies that have protected the U.S. and its allies. I’m no Hoosier, but I’ll be rooting for him May 8.

This Thursday April 19 marks the 69th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, a 27-day battle in which a small group of Jews, mostly teenagers, held off one of the mightiest, most equipped, and certainly the most evil military power the world has ever known.

The fact that several hundred Jewish teens and twenty-somethings held out for an entire month–longer, in the words of writer Leon Uris, than “many nations” which, he points out “fell beneath the German onslaught in hours”–is a breathtaking testament to human dignity and courage.

Their names should be household names, their deeds should be taught to all and most especially to Jewish people. Mordecai Anielewicz, Marek Edelman, Yitzhak Zukerman, and Zivia Lubetkin (a young woman) were several of the leaders.

Asked in 1968, on the 25th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, what military lessons could be learned from the Uprising, Zukerman replied:

“I don’t think there’s any real need to analyze the Uprising in military terms. This was a war of less than a thousand people against a mighty army and no one doubted how it was likely to turn out. This isn’t a subject for study in military school…. If there’s a school to study the human spirit, there it should be a major subject. The important things were inherent in the force shown by Jewish youth after years of degradation, to rise up against their destroyers, and determine what death they would choose: Treblinka or Uprising. I don’t know if there’s a standard to measure that.”

How striking are his words, “no one doubted how it was likely to turn out.” In other words, even knowing they were facing death, they fought. Also note his words, “after years of degradation.” These twenty-somethings and teenagers, unschooled in combat, unprepared and poorly armed, with their pure courage and, no doubt, keen minds, effectively fought thousands of heavily armed, highly trained professional soldiers for weeks. And they did it after being demoralized and brutalized and starved for years.

Not faced with the years of soul-crushing degradation, intimidation, brutality and trauma that Nazi Germany inflicted on an unarmed, shell-shocked civilian population, no one dares speculate what he or she would have done. But we can draw lessons from history.

One lesson, to paraphrase Rich Cohen, author of “The Avengers,” an account of the lesser-known Vilna Ghetto Uprising in Lithuania which predated Warsaw Ghetto’s (and some maintain inspired it), is that, while most of these brave fighters died, some survived. Although they fought, in the words of Abba Kovner, leader of the Vilna Ghetto Uprising, for “Jewish honor,” and felt that survival was hopeless, some, including Kovner himself, nevertheless did survive. (Kovner went on to become one of Israel’s foremost poets). Even with no hope for survival, to fight increased one’s chances.

Second, one can speculate that, had these brave fighters not been faced with insurmountable odds, had they been organized and prepared — physically and mentally–to defend themselves sooner, before Europe’s Jews had been thoroughly traumatized both psychologically and physically in a systematic attempt by the Nazis to break their collective spirit and render them utterly defenseless, they could have mounted a much stronger defense and many, many more would have survived.

While Europe’s Jews did have the lessons of Jewish oppression through the centuries, they had no modern example of the type of mass brutality that the Nazis inflicted. Such senseless hatred and widespread slaughter of a civilian population was unprecedented in the modern world. To paraphrase Cohen (who recounts the story of Abba Kovner and his compatriots in “The Avengers”), most European Jews could not grasp what was happening until the situation had progressed to the point that they were trapped. In addition to being horrific, it was completely illogical, and perhaps this, more than anything, rendered them hopelessly unprepared. Why on earth, they (not unreasonably) reasoned, would the Germans go to the expense of killing vast numbers of civilians for no purpose other than hatred and prejudice (and by extension to stoke demagoguery?) Surely, European Jews reasoned, the Jews would be more useful to Germany as workers, etc. They were, on the whole, a highly civilized, eminently reasonable group of people confronted by a fascistic, bloodthirsty, irrational enemy intent on their destruction, and by the time most of them fully realized what was happening, it was too late to save themselves, their families, and their communities.

Today, with Iran–a genocidal regime whose leaders have stated their murderous intentions–on its way to attaining nuclear capability, we know better than to believe that genocide is unimaginable and too illogical to ever occur in the modern world. We have a concrete example of what happened 70 years ago when the Jews of Europe took a wait-and-see approach to dealing with a fanatical regime intent on their elimination.

Of all the lessons of the Holocaust, perhaps the most important one for Jews is the obvious lesson. Faced with a murderous enemy who knows no reason, and who tells you he’s coming to kill you, it is always better to fight. The forms that self-defense should take may be subject to debate, but denial, passivity, and appeasement are not valid or wise options. And it’s better to act sooner than to wait until your ability to defend yourself has been seriously compromised.

Am Yisroel Chai.

This Thursday April 19 marks the 69th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, a 27-day battle in which a small group of Jews, mostly teenagers, held off one of the mightiest, most equipped, and certainly the most evil military power the world has ever known.

The fact that several hundred Jewish teens and twenty-somethings held out for an entire month–longer, in the words of writer Leon Uris, than “many nations” which, he points out “fell beneath the German onslaught in hours”–is a breathtaking testament to human dignity and courage.

Their names should be household names, their deeds should be taught to all and most especially to Jewish people. Mordecai Anielewicz, Marek Edelman, Yitzhak Zukerman, and Zivia Lubetkin (a young woman) were several of the leaders.

Asked in 1968, on the 25th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,  what military lessons could be learned from the Uprising, Zukerman replied:

“I don’t think there’s any real need to analyze the Uprising in military terms. This was a war of less than a thousand people against a mighty army and no one doubted how it was likely to turn out. This isn’t a subject for study in military school…. If there’s a school to study the human spirit, there it should be a major subject. The important things were inherent in the force shown by Jewish youth after years of degradation, to rise up against their destroyers, and determine what death they would choose: Treblinka or Uprising. I don’t know if there’s a standard to measure that.”

How striking are his words, “no one doubted how it was likely to turn out.” In other words, even knowing they were facing death, they fought. Also note his words, “after years of degradation.” These twenty-somethings and teenagers, unschooled in combat, unprepared and poorly armed, with their pure courage and, no doubt, keen minds, effectively fought thousands of heavily armed, highly trained professional soldiers for weeks. And they did it after being demoralized and brutalized and starved for years.

Not faced with the accumulated years of soul-crushing degradation, intimidation, brutality and trauma that Nazi Germany inflicted on an unarmed, shell-shocked civilian population, no one dare speculate what he or she would have done. But we can draw lessons from history.

One lesson, to paraphrase Rich Cohen, author of “The Avengers,” an account of the lesser-known Vilna Ghetto Uprising in Lithuania which predated Warsaw Ghetto’s (and some maintain inspired it), is that, while most of these brave fighters died, some survived. Although they fought, in the words of Abba Kovner, leader of the Vilna ghetto uprising, for “honor,” and felt that survival was hopeless, some, including Kovner himself, nevertheless did survive. (Kovner went on to become one of Israel’s foremost poets). Even with no hope for survival, to fight increased one’s chances.

Second, one can speculate that, had these brave fighters not been faced with insurmountable odds, had they been organized and prepared — physically and mentally–to defend themselves sooner, before Europe’s Jews had been traumatized both psychologically and physically in a systematic attempt by the Nazis to break their collective spirit and render them utterly defenseless, they could have mounted a much stronger defense and many, many more would have survived.

While Europe’s Jews did have the lessons of Jewish oppression through the centuries, they had no modern example of the type of mass brutality that the Nazis inflicted. Such senseless hatred and widespread slaughter of a civilian population was unprecedented in the modern world. To paraphrase Cohen (who recounts the story of Abba Kovner and his compatriots in “The Avengers”), most European Jews could not grasp what was happening until the situation had progressed to the point that they were trapped. In addition to being horrific, it was totally illogical, and perhaps this, more than anything, rendered them unprepared. Why on earth would the Germans go to the expense of killing vast numbers of civilians for no reason other than hatred and prejudice (and by extension to stoke demagoguery?) Surely, European Jews (not unreasonably) reasoned, the Jews would be more useful as workers, etc.

Today, with Iran–a genocidal regime whose leaders have stated their murderous intentions–on its way to attaining nuclear capability, we know better than to believe that genocide is unimaginable and too illogical to ever occur in the modern world. We have a concrete example of what happened 70 years ago when the Jews of Europe took a wait-and-see approach to dealing with a fanatical regime intent on their elimination.

In all the lessons to be taken from the Holocaust, perhaps the most salient is the obvious lesson. Faced with a murderous enemy who knows no reason, and who tells you he’s coming to kill you, it is always better to fight. The forms that self-defense should take may be subject to debate, but denial, passivity, and appeasement are not valid or wise options. And it’s better to act sooner than to wait until your ability to defend yourself has been seriously compromised.

Am Yisroel Chai.

New York’s newly appointed Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, has emerged as downright impressive this week.

First he gave an Easter sermon in which he paid homage to Jews and Passover. Oh, yes he did. This from the New York Post:

In his Easter homily this morning at St. Patrick’s Cathedral — which Dolan gave The Post a preview of yesterday — the city’s top cleric wants to joyously wish the world “a blessed Easter” and “a happy Passover.”

“We pass over from darkness to light, from death to life! Jesus passed over from the cross to the resurrection! This is the day the Lord has made! Let us rejoice and be glad in it!
And last Sunday on Face the Nation, he said that Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith is no reason not to vote for him.

Seems to me Cardinal Dolan is being fair-minded. After all, is believing that Joseph Smith found some golden tablets really more cult-like than believing that God came to Moses in a burning bush or that a virgin gave birth to the son of God?

My purpose here is not, God forbid, to disrespect or disparage the sanctity of anyone’s belief, only to point out that, viewed through cynical eyes, with pure logic, or with a prejudiced heart, anyone’s religion can be made to sound absurd and yes, even cult-like. Religion is based in faith, not logic. The mark of an elected official’s rationality is not what he believes spiritually, but how he comports himself as a professional and an individual in private life. As such, writing Romney off for being a Mormon smacks of ignorance and prejudice.

Two good points, Cardinal.

Just received word from attorney and activist Brooke Goldstein (pictured above) that she was banned from speaking by a Jewish society at Leeds University in England.

Goldstein is director of the Lawfare Project, a New York-based non-profit that supports and defends journalists and others who cover radical Islam and terrorism. She also runs the Children’s Rights Institute, a non-profit that raises awareness about the abuse of Muslim children, including their use as human shields and their indoctrination to become suicide bombers. A champion of free speech, Goldstein advised Dutch politician Geert Wilders following his prosecution for “inciting hatred against Muslims” due to his criticism of Islam and stance on Muslim immigration to the Netherlands (he has since been acquitted of wrongdoing).

She expressed surprise at having been blocked from speaking at Leeds University, after speaking at nine venues in the UK, including Parliament. She is dismayed in particular at having been, she says, unfairly characterized as a “hate speaker” by the “Jewish society” at Leeds.

“This is a symptom of a much larger problem,” Goldstein told me, “the silencing of free speech about issues of national security because of accusations of ‘Islamophobia.’”

The Jewish group, known as Jsoc, contends in a statement published on its web site that it canceled Ms. Goldstein’s appearance due to a link on her blog to a web site called ‘The Gates of Vienna’ as well as due to advertisements for the film “The Third Jihad” on her website.

The authors of the statement wrote, “We feel that neither of these are in line with the values we wish to associate with in Jsoc and find their content despicable and abhorrent … We are not happy to hold Ms. Goldstein on our campus. This is not because we are ‘spineless’ or ‘cowardly’ but because we have principals and morals and are proud to stand up for our beliefs and what is right for our community.”

They did not sign their names to their “statement.”

More to come.