JINSA vs. CFLW

The Military

    Militarism has always been rampant throughout most societys. Governments constantly worry about the integrity of others, always seeking insurance. This often comes in the form of proliferation. Governments, when given the opportunity, tend to lean towards creating and strengthening there militarys and arsenals. Before modern times growing militarism would cause problems between countries and peoples to be suppressed until it would reach a breaking point, at which time a war would  be fought. The governments would then demonstrate the to the extent of their abilitys, how well the can defend their soil and conquest over others.

    In modern times the original phenomenon of militarism remains but our previous ability for catharsis does not. Even 100 years ago, world war 1 had devastating consequences. The technological advancements of the 20th century lead to incomprehensible death and destruction in both the world wars. We fought each other with everything we had which included the use of a two atom bombs, showing us a devastating truth. As we continue to advance, we can no longer fight wars in the same way. Now with our massive nuclear proliferation we can't have the same release for if we fought to the extent we could, there would no longer be a world to fight for. As militarism continues to exist, we now have to question the future of this phenomenon and how it effects each of us as citizens of Earth?

The Council For A Livable World

      I've chosen to analyze two organizations that discus militarism. Through discussing the organizations opposing views we can possibly seek out a solution to this growing problem. The Council For A Livable World has very liberal views on this subject. They in general believe that through non-proliferation and reduction we can create a much safer environment for humans. The jist of their organization is that less power to large entities empowers the individual and the individual only wants diplomacy, that we could, as world, agree to only settle disagreements with diplomacy, circumnavigating all violence.

    Here we have a link to the councils mission statement. They seek to "minimize the risk of war through lobbying." The bias is obvious as they don't take into account the benefits of military power. They make the assumption that given the chance, all organizations would rather settle their disputes peaceful. The council doesn't take human nature into account. They act as if humans are inherently compassionate when in reality we are selfish horrible beings. History is riddled with tributes to the selfishness of humanity yet the Council tells us that if we can merely reduce our weaponry and violence will be a thing of the past.

Jewish Institute Of National Security Affairs

    The JINSA is an organization who's main objective is to "secure America" and "strengthen Israel." They are very conservative and in general believe that strength is the solution to violence. With a strong military war will not occur. As Jews, we've had a sorted past. We've been left completely helpless, stripped of our humanity, and constantly bombarded with anti-Semitic attacks and rhetoric. In order to ensure our continued safety as well as the safety of others who our enemy threatens, the JINSA works hard to create alliances among countries and provides training for soldiers and law enforcement.

    Here we have a link to the JINSA mission statement. As I briefly discussed their point of comes from a drive for strength. They believe that answer is proliferation. If we can increase the number of weapons on our side - the moral and just side, we will be to powerful to be attacked. The best way to prevent violence is to demonstrate your aptitude for it. Despite the hatred from much of the world, Israel is rarely attacked. They've already demonstrated the ability war and now live in retaliative peace. This works relatively well for much of the world and as we've seen, nuclear proliferation is extremely beneficial because it permanently prevents all large scale wars and insures us against most aggression.

JINSA Vs. CLW

The JINSA and CLW hold dramatically opposing views. CLW puts the human race on a pedastool, saying that if only we didn't have the means to kill each other efficiently, we would stop killing each other. The JINSA addresses the the terrible selfishness of human nature and understands that while peace is the best option, you must be ready for war. They assume humans are intrinsically violent, caring little for the well being of others while the council believes we are just put into a bad situation, a situation that given time and diplomacy, we can over come. Like with many issues, the liberal side, aka the council bases there argument on compassion and Judah/Christian morals while the conservative side bases there Ideology's mainly on past experiences and a cynical view of human nature. Well in theory the world would be great and peaceful if we got rid of our weapons, the JINSA's solution provides security and ensures us against the worst case scenario. To summarize the JINSA wants to keep us safe in all scenarios and the council would like to push us into a premature and there utopia with no guarantee of success.

How do these interest groups effect peoples political views?

The JINSA scares people, if you only listen to their side you may believe that world is entirely violent, devoid of any inherent peace. They come from a place of fears and therefore project fear so an individual who is is influences may always choose the safer options in politics because of that fear. The argues from a very different platform. They believe in compassion, that the best way to handle your enemy's is to help them. If your entirely influenced by this organization you may lean to towards the options in politics without putting significance in their consequences.