Haaretz's Travesty of Language

Some of the worst left leaning enemies of the Jewish State are within it's own borders. And I'm not talking about the Palestinians -- Women in Black, B'Tselem et al. There are too many to mention...

IDIOTIC!

The Phallustinian scum or better Arab parasites breeding for Jihad should be discouraged. How?

Stop the money! Stop the billions in aid that are used to keep them stupid and to keep them from doing useful with their lives!
This Jihadculture, which they are so obsessed with, will blow away like the desert sand when the money stops!

Haaretz' failure to use the right language is, in parvo, a reflection of a general Israeli failure -- a failure for which it is paying, and for which, one might add, Western Europe is also paying (though, considering the difficulties the Israelis must endure, the constant pressure to deal with the problems of the day, or even of the hour, that failure is not only explicable but forgivable).

That larger failure was the inability to recognize that the refusal of the Arabs to accept Israel is not based on this or that leader. It is not based on this or that policy of the moment. It reflects the deep and immutable tenets of Islam. It is not true, as even some of those who are strong supporters of Israel have taken to maintaining, that the "Arab-Israeli dispute" can be solved "easily" -- if only the Arabs agree to stop all terrorism, democratize, and so on.

There is no solution to the problem, because Israel is an Infidel polity, within dar al-Islam. Even if a "Palestinian" leader better than Arafat's smooth, soft-spoken, but essentially sinister henchman, Abbas, were to come along, and even if, despite everything, he really did want to make a permanent peace with Israel, no intelligent Infidel government can possibly place its permanent security needs in jeopardy on the assumption that the doctrines of Islam will disappear. Eighty years of Kemalism have not caused Islam to disappear -- it is back, with a vengeance, the Rasputin of belief-systems. It will always come back. The effort to constrain it, to limit it, to undercut it, to cause people to fall away from it, to cause its adherents to fight each other, is the permanent task of the entire non-Muslim world -- a task which will become more and more apparent as people begin to educate themselves about the nature of Islam, and as defectors, ex-Muslims, become less and less afraid to report the truth about this belief-system.

Not all Israelis failed to understand. But most did. Jabotinsky, the most clear-sighted, understood that the Arabs would only "accept" the Jews if they believed they could not dislodge them. He failed, however, to relate this view to Islam, and instead used the vocabulary of "Arab nationalism" which plays into the hands of Muslims, for it diverts attention from Islam itself. Jabotinsky understood, though he did not articulate, the fact that ony the doctrine of necessity, darura, could limit Arab violence or opposition -- if it were clear not only that Israel were there to stay, but that its power was, and would always be, such that terrible damage could and would be inflicted on the Jihadists and on the interests of Islam.

The failure of Israelis to recognize the nature of the threat is understandable. Who wants to believe that a conflict is permanent? Who wants, especially when there is the possibility of winning to one's sid, in a limited fashion, the diplomatic support or military alliance even with non-Arab Muslim powers run by "secularists" who are prompted by their fears of the Arabs. As long as Israel could minimze the specifically "Islamic" nature of the war against it, it was easier to seek alliances with the Shah's Iran, or with Turkey. But the failure to articulate the Islamic nature (and not all this nonsnese about a separate "Palestinian people" desperate for recovering their "legitimate rights") of the opposition to Israel had, as one consequence, an echoing failure in Western Europe.

A generation of scholars died out -- the last was Dufourcq, a generation that knew about Islam that retired, or died. Oceans of Arab money bought up academic centers and dozens of plushly upholstered chairs in Islamic studies. Edward Said came along with his fashionable thuggery, his ludicrous -- but ludicrously accepted -- insistence that all Westerners who studied Islam were to be ignored or belittled because of course they were involved in the "project of colonialism" unless of course they said wonderful things about the Arabs and Muslims, and in that case of course they weren't. This nonsense is now thoroughly established at Columbia, at the "Centers" at Georgetown, and indeed all over the place, as that center of misinformation and apologetics of that conspiratorial group MESA or rather, Mesa Nostra, demonstrates with every official syllable that comes from its officers.

If, back in 1948, the Israelis had focused on Islam, and on Jihad, had when they enjoyed the sympathy and support of Western Europe which the Arabs managed to whittle away, through all that "Palestinian people" propaganda and manipulation of pre-existing mental conditions (antisemitism, anti-Americanism), they might have helped some Europeans be more wary about mass migration -- or indeed any migration -- of Muslims into Western Europe.

If, at this point, Israel "must be saved despite itself" by those who understand that Sharon once had an idea, and now that idea has him (this idiotic pull-out from Gaza, which will virtually ensure another war), so must Western Europe now be saved "despite itself" -- and that calls for American money, American intervention, American attention that switches from Iraq, where "democracy" will not lead to a lessening of Islamic fervor, and where the natural divisions of the country should not be papered over but allowed to express themselves without an American presence to take most of the punishment and all of the responsibilty.

"Activists" is bad. "Palestinian people" is worse. "An Islam that will be Europeanized" (Tariq Ramadan) is still worse.

Would that the handful of good Islamic scholars in Israel -- Moshe Sharon, Raphael Israeli, Mordecai Nisan all come to mind -- could prevail over their left-wing colleagues, who are as silly in their own way as the members of Mesa Nostra here at home.

Hugh,

Incisive insight into the problem of what the world erroneously calls the "Palestinian"-Israeli conflict.

Israel's acceptance of the Arabs as ciizens in the days of Zionism and the the "post-Zionist" fervor gripping a large sector in Israel is also to blame for Israel's problem.

A good exposition of this is given by Prof. Paul Eidelberg. There is no link to this piece, so I am reprinting it here:

For a Breath of Truth and Courage

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The most significant accomplishment of the modern State of Israel is its proliferation of Yeshivas, of Torah learning. Yet this accomplishment was never intended by the secular Zionists who founded of the State. The leading Zionists, above all David Ben-Gurion, were self-professed Marxists, hence atheists. True, Ben-Gurion admitted, were it not for the Torah, the Jewish people, dispersed among the nations, would have become as extinct as the Mesopotamians. Nevertheless, he believed that founding of the State and the ingathering of the Jews rendered the Torah obsolete. Indeed, secular Zionists feared that popular adherence to the Torah would obstruct the development of a modern socialist and egalitarian society, the goal of Ben-Gurion’s Mapai party, now called Labor.

What is most ironic about this one-time Zionist party is that its egalitarian ideology complicated the task of forming a secular democratic state. Egalitarianism required Zionists to confer citizenship on the large number of Arabs living within the armistice lines established after the 1948-49 War of Independence. Desperately needed was a large Jewish majority in the Land of Israel. Needed was a great influx of Jews from Africa and Asia. But this posed a dilemma for secular Zionists.

The vast majority of the Jews from Africa and Asia were religious. Their potential voting power was an obvious threat to Labor’s political predominance. Labor needed these Jews to counterbalance the Arab population and, at the same time, endow the new State of Israel with “legitimacy” as a “Jewish” State. But the immigration of 700,000 religious Jews from Africa and Asia in the first three years of the State’s existence would lead, in the natural course of events, to Labor’s, i.e., the Left’s political demise.

If the Left was not to commit political suicide and renounce the goal of creating a thoroughly egalitarian or secular democratic state, they would have to secularize the Sephardi and oriental Jews. This they did to no small extent, and in unconscionable ways. Immigrant parents who sent their children to religious schools were denied employment until they transferred their children to secular schools. Thousands of Yemenite children were herded into secular kibbutzim and other anti-religious institutions. At the same time, immigrant transit camps became schools for left-wing and anti-religious propaganda designed to turn youth away from their parents.

Thus, by means of coercion, segregation, and indoctrination, the Left undermined the structure and intense loyalties of countless impoverished Sephardi and oriental Jewish families on the one hand, and their dedication to Torah values on the other. The consequence was a spiritual holocaust. To this day the vast majority of the Jews languishing in Israeli prisons are Sephardi and oriental.

Meanwhile, the public schools, whose curriculum was designed by secularists graduated hundreds of thousands of culturally deprived Jews. Jewish youth were transformed into “Israelis.” Bereft of Judaism, these shallow products of secular Zionism have no religious attachment to the Land of Israel. Indeed, insofar as they regard themselves as Israelis and not as Jews, one might say––certainly an Arab who believes in Allah could say––they have no right to this land, that they are “robbers.”

The mere fact that Gad Yacobi of the Labor Party, Israel’s erstwhile UN ambassador, proclaimed to a Harvard University audience, “there is no such thing as Jewish land,” indicates that the party now headed by octogenarian Shimon Peres does indeed consist of hijackers. How much easier it was for such Jews, devoid of Judaism, to offer the heartland of the Jewish people to a murderous villain like Yasser Arafat.

And so what did they accomplish? They boast, not without justice, of having made the deserts bloom and of having established, along with a powerful defense force, the country’s scientific-technological infrastructure. But against with these accomplishments it must be reiterated that they undermined the religious integrity of countless Jews; that they established an educational system that transformed Jews into spiritually empty Israelis; and that now, such is their moral and intellectual bankruptcy that they are endangering Israel’s very existence with the help of their surrogate prime minister Ariel Sharon, a con man.

Recall that the state created by these former Zionists was intended to provide for the long-sought security of the Jewish people. But now what do we see? Squeezed into a narrow strip of land are five million Jews threatened with annihilation. The same Zionist state was intended to restore the honor of the Jewish people. Never in history have the Jewish people been so humiliated and disgraced as they have under the present Sharon government, whose ministers excel only in moral cowardice.

When all is said and done about this era, one bitter parallel needs to be remembered. On the one hand, thanks to the Bolsheviks who ruled the Soviet Union, a million Jews left Russia and settled in the Land of Israel. On the other hand, thanks to the Bolsheviks who have ruled Israel, a million Jews have left this country and are again dispersed among the nations!

Let us also bear in mind that the Labor Party, which has ever controlled Israel’s economy and the media as well as the country’s educational and cultural institutions, never won more than 51seats in the Knesset, hence never represented a majority of the Jewish people. What a pathetic commentary on Israel’s so-called right-wing and religious parties! Why, when most Jews in Israel are not leftists, why have these parties failed to restore Jewish national pride and prevent the many thousands of casualties suffered by Jews in recent years?

Perhaps because these parties failed to proclaim, on every public forum, that Israel’s only justification is to be a Jewish State—not a secular democratic state, but a state ruled solely by Jews who, whether religious or not, are proud of their Jewish heritage. There can be no other justification for the State of Israel.

O for a breath of truth and courage! O to clear the air of all the lies and cowardice that have produced Israel’s decrepit post-Zionist state. Needed are men of truth and courage who will stand up and proclaim that their goal is nothing less than the formation of a New Israel, one whose way of life and system of government are rooted in the Torah.