Calmeyer Lawyer 1s

Hans Calmeyer Righteous Gentile 1903-1972

Lawyer for Life

Tell Them


Israel Western-Wall-And-Omar-Mosque-Jerusalem-Israel-1-1600x1200

Hans Calmeyer’s great frustration in life was that the world was unaware of the continuing leadership in Germany and elsewhere of totally evil and guilty, murderous people. A site called is an example of what Calmeyer and  this site are seeking to do: TEACH the knowledge that is being lost.

It is not easy to tell people who are not inclined to listen. Do we “market” to them in some way as to make it interesting, as in Schindler’s List, or can we appeal to people’s self-preservation and knowledge of imminent danger? Are warnings heeded any more than the telling of stories?

We cannot give up, just because the story is hard to tell.

It’s all  defense, all the time  By SARAH KASS  06/09/2010 22:23

Because  Israel’s story is compulsively defensive, the IDF is set up to offend the ordinary person even when it executes its mission flawlessly.

Why do  decent, ordinary people support Hizbullah? Because Hizbullah has a  winning story. Why can Hamas fire rockets at Israel with impunity?  Because Hamas  has a winning story. Why are Turkish blockade runners international  heroes?  Because they, too, have a winning story.

In each case the winning story is  a variation on a single theme: “Israel, Israel, big bad Israel.” In each case,  the winning story is an example of a public relations offensive, where the  interested party talks exclusively and mercilessly about the other  side.

Were they not playing public relations offense so well, Hizbullah, Hamas and, yes, the we-are-the-world blockade running terrorists “clubs in one hand and Twitter posts in the other“ would obviously offend ordinary citizens.

But well-meaning people don’t get offended when public relations  offensives really work. That is why, under the cover of a 24-7, globally propelled, public relations machine that is airtight, unchanging and  playing  unrelentingly on offense, terrorists get away with murder and more, over and  over and over again.

Why, on the other hand, does the IDF repeatedly  offend the ordinary, well-meaning person? Because when the IDF acts,  Israel’s  spokespeople provide not a winning story but a whining story. Israel  refuses to  talk about anything but Israel. (1) Israel explains: At 22:00 hours, a  group of  flotilla passengers began to. (2) Israel pleads: But they really did beat us  up before we shot them.(3) Israel apologizes: We regret the loss of  life. With much fanfare, (4) Israel promises to investigate, reports on her investigations and  self-flagellates.

And when all else fails, (5) Israel  plays her most prized defensive cards anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. It’s  all defense, all the time.

Because Israel’s story is compulsively  defensive, the IDF is set up to offend the ordinary person even when it  executes  its mission flawlessly. Soldiers kill people. That’s what they do for a  living,  so to speak. Without the cover of a strong counter-narrative, any  military action  can descend into an international incident. Israel™s present strategy of post  facto, defensive hasbara (literally explanation) will simply not do. There can  be no IDF military victory on the ground, in the air or at sea without  an  equally winning story on the broadsheets, in the airwaves and inside the blogosphere.

Without Israe’s spokespeople laying down a wall-to-wall  narrative about the other side, the IDF will forever be starring in the  enemy’s  script; and make no mistake, in that script the IDF always, always,  plays the  villain. The ordinary, well-meaning person will not permit villains to  kill  people. Period.

WHAT WOULD a public relations offensive for Israel look  like? The goal would be for Israel to avoid the headlines. The word  “Israel”  would be banned from the lexicon of its spokespeople “ no more  explanations  about Israel, no more facts about Israel, no more pleading Israel’s  case.  Instead, it would uniformly, unequivocally, relentlessly, and without  sparing  the gory details, focus on the enemy. Hasbara would become haashama (accusation).

Diplomacy would shift from outraged, after-the-fact post  mortems into a continual, spirited, pregame rally promising the enemy’s  defeat.  Intelligence services would coordinate the assault against Arab  propaganda the way the Cold War’s CIA underwrote the case against communism. The  Defense  Ministry would never again put the IDF on offense without the Foreign  Ministry’s  first softening the public relations battlefield with an unrelenting  barrage of  stories, images, videos and tweets about the adversary pounding into the heads  of foreign leaders, journalists, and ordinary citizens worldwide.

How  might a public relations offensive have prevented flotillagate? Here are some  things the Foreign Ministry and the intelligence services might have  made sure  the world was buzzing about these past several months: (1) The Free Gaza movement: Who are these people? Who funds them? What else do their  funders fund?  How do Free Gaza and al-Qaida cooperate? Why are nice little Anne  Montgomery,  Hedy Epstein and Lauren (sister-in-law of Tony Blair) Booth consorting  with the  world’s most wanted terrorist sympathizers? (2) The Arab superwealth:  What is  day-to-day life in Gaza really like? What’s on the shelves in Gaza  supermarkets?  What do the luxury homes of  Gaza’s Hamas leadership look like? (3)  Turkey: Why  is Turkey so friendly to the Palestinians while so ruthless to the  stateless  Kurds under its boot? How and why is Turkey supporting global terror  networks?  How dare the nation which taught Hitler about genocide (in Armenia)  accuse  anyone of trampling on human honor? The flotilla public relations fiasco was not  a failure of Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his top brass. Flotillagate was the  failure of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, his foreign minister and  his  intelligence chief, who, once again, allowed the State of Israel and its IDF to  be swift-boated.

If Israel wishes to win militarily, its spokespeople must  stop whining. As the world’s first-responders to global death-cult  terror, the  IDF deserves more room to maneuver than Israel’s limp public diplomacy  currently  provides. The country has a winning story that has nothing to do with  anti-Semitism or the Holocaust. It has to do with the degeneracy of  globally  coordinated fanatics who seek their own death and wish to take the world down  with them.

The civilized world is hungry for Israel to tell, propel and  lead with that story. It is unbecoming for its intelligence services to  miss so straightforward a story, and for its prime minister and foreign minister not to  drive this story hard until decent, ordinary citizens everywhere  understand. It  is, in fact, inexcusable.

The writer is director of strategy and evaluation at the Avi Chai Foundation

Was Calmeyer merely whining when he pleaded for witnesses to tell, and the world to listen to, Holocaust history and truth in postwar Germany?

Calmeyer would have much appreciated the story on the left: he spent his last years exasperated and puzzled about the fact that German post-war news included nothing about the past evils of the Nazis, nor anything about the lies and evils silently being perpetrated by high Nazis still in many positions of power throughout Germany. The problem, when the media are dominated or influenced by just one point of view hammered over and over, is that getting the other side out then sounds just like “whining” ...

In Germany, one of the misconceptions today is that the corporatist Nazis remaining in economic and political power after the war were somehow “right-wing” and that Calmeyer opposed them for that reason. Despite rumors that Calmeyer had left-leaning views, it was socialists that supported and led to the Nazis and it was socialists in America during the way that did nothing with the knowledge that Jewish concentration camps were carrying out the Holocaust.

What Calmeyer wanted to TELL was the lessons people needed to learn about truth versus propaganda, that the surface explanation given by government and government-influenced press is not the full truth at all. Though the pretense of objectivity may be there, a consensus is built around a chosen premise that supports the status quo, protects the liars.

This is of course what the Nazi press did with the Jews, not much less so before the war, and not even that much less right after the war, describing Jews over and over again as unworthy halflings. This is how Africans were treated in America during slavery, as non-people and quarter-votes and non-human. There was little benefit in whining until the entire social fabric accepted equality as human beings, and it ultimately happened only because of war, for both Jews and Blacks.

Today’s public relations is either controlled by the press or bought with hard dollars. The internet helps greatly to spread truth as well as falsehoods, allowing the reader to decide, but at least presenting all sides where the internet is not State-controlled. But the media themselves build in their bias, if they have one, which they normally do.

There is also a small matter of a personal decision about what is the correct view. Some issues do NOT have two sides of the story, truth is one side only. That personal decision as to what is right and wrong often needs more information than is made available, but just as often a right view is informed by morality and a righteousness built from the character of the individual.

Rather than relativistic argument that imagines that there are two sides that should meet in the middle, reality often demands a Solomonic decision (based on the sanctity of life, interestingly enough) that one side must win, and that that side is right if the decision is made before God, before a greater principle of truth and morality than can be found in every human dispute. That then is justice which properly applies right and wrong by understanding the morality of the primary intent.

Can we assure knowing the goodness or evil of primary intent? No, we cannot, and therein lies the dilemma of living in a world of much evil and some good. It is a PR battle, a battle of individual conscience, a battle with power and a battle with the State, a battle of morality and a battle of the heart.