גילוי דעת של הציונות החדשה - A Neozionist Manifesto

[ZionostWarrior]

BS"D

(Motzaei Shabbat, 11th of Iyar 5770)

A Neozionist Manifesto

PREAMBLE. Zionism is not a new creation, but an ancient and renewed
one. Jewish nationalism has its beginnings in antiquity, when the
ancestors of most of the enemies of the Jewish nation were still
nothing more than an assortment of tribes without cohesion. Even
though the outward expressions of Zionism were halted for centuries,
still the yearning of the nation of Israel for a life of sovereignty
in the Land of Israel never vanished from them. Zionism is divided
into three parts according to period:

1. Paleozionism, which is the Jewish nationalism beginning from our
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, peace be upon them, through
Moses, Joshua and the Shoftim until the end of the conquests in the
days of David the King of Israel, and ending with the Hasmoneans. It
rests upon the promise of the Holy One, Blessed Is He, of the Land of
Israel to the nation of Israel, and not upon past sufferings such as
the period of slavery in Egypt.

2. Mesozionism, which is the renewal of Jewish nationalism inspired by
the nationalist movements in Europe, and whose carrying out in
practice began with the Aliyah of 5642 (1882 CE) from both Yemen and
Russia. However, that Zionism had among its principles the idea that
the nation of Israel was to be a nation like all other nations,
thereby forcing itself to cleave to the fashions of the nations, such
as today’s political fashion of the obligation to be a multicultural
state, as well as to insane laws of warfare that are of no use against
an enemy totally lacking in morality. Also, it based its arguments
upon past sufferings, which made it vulnerable to the arguments of the
fictional nation that presented itself as a dispossessed indigenous
people (see following).

3. Neozionism, which comes out of the recognition of Jews—both secular
and religious—that the preservation of Jewish nationalism is in
contradiction to the perverse political ideas of our period. It does
not rely on past sufferings as does Mesozionism, nor on the argument
that the Jewish nation needs a sanctuary, but on the simple and
ancient truth that the Land of Israel belongs to the nation of Israel,
in that only the nation of Israel has a special and rooted connection
to the Land of Israel*.

This document brings forth the summaries of Neozionism, starting from
its ideological doctrine and ending with its practical ramifications.
From the time the Jews recognize the rightness of the Zionist way,
they will take the steps necessary to defend their state from any foe,
both external and internal, and will not take heed as to what the non-
Jews say about that. These are the sections of Neozionism:

1. We argue with perfect conviction that the nation of Israel, the
Jewish nation, has the right to a sovereign state in all the areas of
Greater Israel, and that they have the right to inhabit it everywhere
without asking permission of any other nation.

2. We argue that every nation, provided that it be real and not
fictitious, has the right to a state with definite borders in which
its members alone are citizens and all others are non-citizens. He who
wishes to be a citizen shall move to his nation-state, or become a
citizen if and only if the guest nation permits it.

3. We categorically reject the idea of multiculturalism or
multinationalism, in that it has been a total failure wherever tried.
No two nations can reside under one political framework. We have
learned from reality that this situation turns the lives of the
nations to a hell on earth in the best case, and ends in genocide (G-d
forbid) in the worst.

4. The Jewish nation has a special and rooted connection to the Land
of Israel, whereas the members of all other nations found in the Land
of Israel are here only because of the fortuitous travels of jackboots
or forced population exchanges. The Arabs in the Land of Israel differ
from the Arabs in Iraq to the same extent that they differ from the
Arabs in Morocco, and not because of any uniqueness of theirs in the
Land of Israel.

5. The Arab nation is indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula, and there
it has the right to a sovereign state of its own; every inheritance
that the Arab nation has outside the Arabian Peninsula must be
regarded as a courtesy. Therefore we consider any Arab grievance
concerning dispossession in the Land of Israel as null and void by
nature.

6. From the moment the Ottoman Empire passed away from the world, and
in light of the fact that the British rule was set as temporary a
priori, the only political entity having a legitimate claim to
sovereignty upon the Land of Israel is the State of Israel.

7. We categorically deny the existence of any “Palestinian nation,”
deeming it to be a blatant lie, a fiction, a fraud and an illusion
whose entire purpose is the concealment of the fact of the patently
unjust struggle of the Arab nation—possessor of many states and vast
areas—against the right of the Jewish nation to one sovereign state in
the whole world. The “Palestinian nation” has no historical,
linguistic, ethnic or cultural existence, and anyone who speaks of the
“Palestinian nation” or of the “Israel–Palestine conflict” gives aid,
knowingly or unknowingly, to anti-Zionist propaganda.

8. The definition of a Jew: whose mother is Jewish or who has
undergone halachic (Orthodox) conversion.

9. Israel is the State of the Jews, and only a Jew can be a citizen of
it. Anyone who belongs to another nation is a citizen of his nation-
state, as said in section 2.

10. Every Jew, from the very fact that he or she is a Jew, and
regardless of his or her place of birth, is a native of (indigenous
to) the Land of Israel, and has the right to make aliyah to the Land
of Israel to inhabit it whenever he or she desires, and is a citizen
of it from the moment of his or her residing in it.

11. The non-Jew who resides in the State of Israel, if he does not
express ideas to the effect that the land belongs to him, has the
status of ger toshav and must not be harmed in any way whatsoever. But
the non-Jew who thinks and says that the land belongs to him ceases to
be a ger toshav and becomes an enemy, and his judgment is this only:
to be expelled from the Land of Israel.

12. We reject the argument that ethnic cleansing is tantamount to
genocide. On the contrary, we argue that ethnic cleansing is one of
the means of averting genocide.

13. We permit a variety of political views in our midst as long as
they do not differ with the basic assumption that Israel is the nation-
state of the nation of Israel. Any movement that differs with this,
whether it represents another nation’s imperialism (for example: Arab
imperialism, also known as Islam) or calls for the abolition of
nationhood altogether (for example: Marxism), has no permission to
exist in the State of Israel.

14. Based upon the experience of thousands of years, we reject any
reliance on other nations for our security. We contend that weaponry
must be obtained only by means of a deal (payment and nothing else)
and not by charitable gifts, for it is the way of charity to turn into
extortion when the charitable non-Jew is replaced by a merciless one.

15. Neither do we rely even upon a gift that seems to have no strings
attached, for it is impossible to know where a trap would be set for
us. For example, aid money could become a tool to pressure the State
of the Jews to acquiesce to missionaries in it working to rob Jews of
their inheritance of the world to come (G-d forbid).

16. The loyalty of a Jew is to his brothers and sisters, not to the
spirit of the time. Any Jew who aids a non-Jew on a Jew’s expense has
jettisoned himself from the collective of Israel.

17. We contend that the State of Israel has value only as a sovereign
framework in which the nation of Israel is free of any subjugation to
other nations. It has no value in its own right, and its value issues
only from its fulfillment of that purpose.

18. While the believers among us trust in HaShem for Israel to be
everlasting, and those who do not believe have other reasons to trust
so, still all of us Neozionists have in common our trust in ourselves
and not in any nation apart from us. Let that be for us a source of
energy to be as one and remove any threat from the nation of Israel.
Amen ken yehi ratzon.

* The argument given in the first Rashi (“He hath declared to His
people the power of His works” and so forth) is superb too, but there
is reason to fear making it, because of the danger that the Accuser
could bring it before the Holy One, Blessed Is He, in order that He
might withdraw mercy from us.

[ZionostWarrior]

BS"D

Background and Clarifications to the Neozionist Manifesto

In this document the ideas behind each section of the manifesto are
explained in more detail. Expressions requiring background or
clarifications are brought forth between quotes, and subsequently the
explanations.

From the Preamble:

“Zionism is not a new creation.” One of the big lies of the anti-
Zionists that have taken hold in our day is the idea that Zionism is a
colonial settler movement of 19th-century Europeans. This lie,
combined with the “Palestinian nation” lie, has the purpose of
presenting the Jews in the Land of Israel as a foreign implant in the
region destined for expulsion (G-d forbid) by the “indigenous
Palestinians” just as the Europeans were expelled from all their
colonies. Like every big lie, this lie needs to be based on some
kernel of truth, and here the truth is that of the renewal of Jewish
nationalism in the 19th century by inspiration from the European
nationalist movements. However, the full truth is that Zionism already
existed in antiquity, and in the 19th century was only renewed, not
created ex nihilo. We must emphasize this truth by means of a
historiography that divides Zionism into three periods: Paleozionism,
Mesozionism and Neozionism.

“However, that Zionism had among its principles the idea that the
nation of Israel was to be a nation like all other nations, thereby
forcing itself to cleave to the fashions of the nations.” This is
Mesozionism’s most prominent and decisive characteristic. Mesozionism
had three guiding principles: the inhabitation of the Land of Israel,
the raising of political sovereignty for the nation of Israel and the
transformation of the nation of Israel into a nation like all other
nations. The first principle was never broken, not even for those who
believed the political sovereignty of the nation of Israel would
return only at the hands of Mashiah Tsidkenu. The second principle
became a bone of contention among different factions in the nation of
Israel—most Ultra-Orthodox and lehavdil the assimilationists were
inclined to negate it, while Religious Zionism and a few of the Ultra-
Orthodox joined hand with the secular Zionists in the work for
building a national home for the Jews in the Land of Israel. The third
principle was the most revolutionary of them all, and in contradiction
to the belief of every believing Jew, because the Torah says the
nation of Israel is special among all the nations. Therefore even the
religious Zionists could not accept all of Mesozionism wholeheartedly;
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Cook zt"l named [Meso]zionism “The
Beginning of Redemption” and not “The Redemption” for that reason.

Howbeit, more than the principle of “A Nation Like All Other Nations”
affected the relationship of Mesozionism with the Jewish religion, it
carried within it the end of Mesozionism itself. Whereas, in Binyamin
Ze’ev Herzl’s time, widespread world opinion was not against the idea
of a state exclusive to a particular nation (“France is the state of
the French nation” and similar), now in our day the very expressing of
that idea leads to the one expressing it being decried as a “racist.”
Mesozionism’s striving for the creation of a state for the Jews is
confronted with this generation’s order for “a multicultural state,”
and the Zionist Jew is forced to choose either of the two. There are
those who choose to keep their “progressive” status in the eyes of the
world and abandon the idea of a state exclusive to the Jews—these are
the Post-Zionists; in contrast to them, there are those who prefer to
ignore the opinion of the non-Jews and cling to the idea of Israel as
the state of the Jews—those are the Neozionists. The conflict between
our day’s political fashion and the need to secure Jewish sovereignty
has put Mesozionism on a crossroads.

“As well as to insane laws of warfare that are of no use against an
enemy totally lacking in morality.” The Arab enemy does not recoil
from any means—it puts its fighters and weapons inside the civilian
population, so that we would hesitate to harm them, or if we still
harm them, even by accident, it could present our “cruelty” before the
world, and hold our fighters as defendants at the courts of
international “law.” But the Torah’s laws of warfare, it is evident,
are much more progressive than the “ethical” laws of the modern
period, and only by returning to them can a conscience-lacking enemy
like ours be defeated. They state that we are guilty if we have harmed
the civilian population only when the other side takes care to
separate it from the fighters; if the other side does not, then the
guilt belongs to the leaders of the other side.

“Out of the recognition of Jews—both secular and religious.” The
manifesto wishes to draw near and not to repel—to draw the Children of
Israel near to each other, and to repel them only from the non-Jews.
Neozionism receives unto itself all of the nation of Israel who
recognize the existential danger with which we are confronted; every
Jew, be he secular or national-religious or Ultra-Orthodox. The writer
of the document is national-religious and expects the coming of
Mashiah Tsidkenu (soon in our days, amen), but despite that recognizes
that the choice of the suitable Jew is in the hands of HaShem, and
that, until then, rash steps that could lead to civil war (G-d forbid)
must be avoided. The vision of the manifesto is that, in the period of
transition until the coming of Mashiah Ben David, the state of Israel
shall become a Jewish Republic, in which only Jews have political
rights. All the problems must be approached only out of love of fellow
Jew and giving a good account of the nation of Israel. Above all it
must be remembered that in our day there is not a single Jew who
commits transgressions out of a wish to anger HaShem, but only because
of the sicknesses of latter days, such as unbelief. Truly wicked are
only those Jews who cast themselves outside the collective.

(In the footnote) “Because of the danger that the Accuser could bring
it before the Holy One, Blessed Is He, in order that He might withdraw
mercy from us.” That, if we flail the Torah as the document that gives
us the right to the Land of Israel, the Accuser will say to the Holy
One, Blessed Is He, “Do they indeed keep it as they should?”, and then
the Holy One, Blessed Is He, might decree exile upon us (G-d forbid).
As much as possible, no word should be given to the mouth of the
Accuser.

“From the time the Jews recognize the rightness of the Zionist way,
they will take the steps necessary” (and so forth). For it is clear to
any observer of the history of the state of Israel, that the
deterioration of our condition is rooted first and foremost in the
loss of our faith in the rightness of our way. The more we have
conceded our arguments regarding our right to a state of the Jews in
the Land of Israel, the more the non-Jews have found courage to step
on us like a doormat, until we have arrived today at a situation where
every petty statesman coming from the countries of the non-Jews to us
for a visit sees no wrong in preaching to us, even on our internal
affairs. Our situation will improve only when we believe that the idea
of a state of the Jews in the Land of Israel is justified from start
to finish.

From the sections:

(1) “In all the areas of Greater Israel.” That is, Judea, Samaria and
Gaza too, and even the eastern bank of the Jordan (which was supposed
to become part of the national home after World War One). There are
those who might say that the last of these is an excessive demand, but
as the Arab enemy puts no limit to its demands, there is no shame in
our reacting by the same token.

(2) Why does this section come, which relates to other nations? In
order to make clear that Neozionism’s demand of a state exclusive to
the Jewish nation is not something that only the national of Israel
deserves, but any other nation does. This section is part of the
negation of the idea of multiculturalism, and it situates Neozionism
as part of the direction of sane nationalism. That affair will be made
clear in the next section:

(3) The idea that more than one nation can live peacefully under the
same political framework is the brain-child of Utopians—people who do
not permit facts like human nature to disturb their rose-colored
dreams. The realists know that the multicultural idea is a recipe for
untold suffering, and they can prove it with many examples: beginning
with relatively good cases like the Flemish and Walonians in Belgium,
through the daily suffering that the indigenous peoples of India,
Thailand and Europe undergo at the hand of the Muslim settler-
colonists in their lands, and ending with terrible holocausts like
that of Rwanda. In order to prevent abundant bloodshed, the realists—
the Neozionists being among them—advocate the idea of an exclusive
state for every nation. This exclusivism is ensured by withholding
citizenship from anyone who is not of the nation of the particular
state; if someone of the other nation makes demands for equal rights,
he is expelled from the state. It will be argued that no one would be
willing to live in inferior status. The reply to that is, that there
is no necessity for him to be of inferior status—he need only emigrate
to his nation-state, and there he will be a citizen and all others
will be of inferior status. However, it is not the intention of this
idea to state how the order of the world should be—Neozionism goes by
this idea whether other nations do the same or not.

(4) “A special and rooted connection to the Land of Israel.” There is
no other land of which a Jew could say that it is his, and there is no
other nation that cannot lead a full existence outside the Land of
Israel.

(7) The “Palestinian nation” began to appear in the writings and
discourse of the non-Arab non-Jews only about thirty years ago, and of
the Arabs only about sixty years ago. Among the non-Arab non-Jews,
before that time, one would speak only of “The Arab–Israeli Conflict”
and of “The Problem of The Arab Refugees,” and among the Arabs, the
Arabs of the Land of Israel were called “Southern Syrians” until the
British Mandate period, and those had no special national
consciousness until after the War of Independence. “Palestine” among
all the non-Jews has been since Roman times the name of a region and
not a nation, and in old books we find the expression “Palestinian
Jew” denoting a Jew living in the Land of Israel. Also, until the time
of struggle against Western colonialism, no one talked of any “Syrian
nation” or “Iraqi nation” or any such, but only of the “Arab nation.”
Finally, if someone argues that enough time has passed to be able to
consider the Arabs of the Land of Israel as a nation in its own right,
it must be replied that history and culture are required in order to
be a nation, and it cannot be that every group of people calling
itself a nation could be considered a nation, just as a soldier needs
to participate in battles and show strategic acumen in order to rise
to the position of General, while wearing the uniform alone would not
suffice.

(8) This subject raises lamentable controversies, but a clear
definition must be made, and it had better be that which the Jews have
agreed upon throughout the generations. At any rate, our situation is
better than that of the nations of Europe, who rack themselves over
many conflicting criteria for defining their identity (culture,
language, skin color and so on). We must be thankful that we have a
ready-made definition, and we need only accept it.

(9) “Israel is the State of the Jews.” And not just “The Jewish
State,” for in that definition there is no provision against its
repeal (G-d forbid) in a democratic vote by non-Jews having become its
majority. The idea of a “Jewish and democratic state” must pass away
in favor of the new idea of a “Jewish Republic.”

(10) “Every Jew, from the very fact that he or she is a Jew, and
regardless of his or her place of birth, is a native of (indigenous
to) the Land of Israel.” Derived from the special and rooted
connection between the nation of Israel and the Land of Israel. This
principle is most important, for it is the weakening of our faith in
our being the true indigenous inhabitants of the Land of Israel that
has breached the opening toward our many capitulations to the
“Palestinian nation” pretending to be indigenous. The Neozionist
believes that every Jew is a native of the Land of Israel, whereas the
non-Jew, even a resident for tens of generations, is a foreign
implant.

(12) From the previous section (11) comes simply the idea of expelling
all the Arabs who argue that our land belongs to them, meaning most of
them. Modern political fashion recoils from ethnic cleansing, on
“moral” grounds, of course. The realists know that only the mass
deportation of all the people of other nationality challenging the
nation-state can prevent the great suffering that eventually ensues
from the existence of many nations under one political framework.
Policy that prevents genocide is much more moral than all the thoughts
of the bien-pensants. It must be further noted that all the anti-
Zionists call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews, from Judea and Samaria
at the very least. They say, of course, that the Jews inhabiting Judea
and Samaria are alien invaders and therefore it is imperative to expel
them. When we believe that we are the indigenous and the Arabs are the
alien invaders, we will be able to act by that same logic of the anti-
Zionists and call for the expulsion of all the alien invaders from our
land.

(13) “A variety of political views … as long as they do not differ
with the basic assumption that Israel is the nation-state of the
nation of Israel.” In contrast to pure democracy, a republic is
democracy that can defend itself, and which sees itself fit to
prohibit any challenge to itself. Israel as a Jewish Republic shall
prohibit any view that calls for the repeal of Israel as a Jewish
Republic.

(13) “Arab imperialism, also known as Islam … Marxism.” Those two
examples have been brought mainly because those two movements have
made a pact against the nation-states throughout all the world. The
Islamic invasion columns enter the states, and the Marxist traitors
give them aid in that they open the gates before them, and in decrying
any opposition to that as “racism” in all the media. Certainly there
are more factors imperiling the nation-state, but those two are the
most dangerous.

(16) “The loyalty of a Jew is to his brothers and sisters, not to the
spirit of the time.” The traits of charity and mercy are good, but as
a rule they are effective within the nation (for example, every “Thy
neighbor” in the Torah means “Thy fellow Israelite”). When a Jew is
called to condemn his brother in the name of external values such as
Humanism or Progressivism, he must refuse and stand with his brother.
Without unity there is no possibility of victory.

(17) In this section it is made clear that Neozionism is not fascism.
Fascism holds that the state is above all and that the individual is
nullified in favor of the collective. According to Neozionism, the
state has authorities (such as the authority of self-defense as stated
in section 13), but those stem from its function, not from its very
being. Likewise, the individual has full freedom as long as he does
not transgress the principle that Israel is the state of the Jews; he
is not expected to dedicate his entire being to the state as if it
were deity (G-d forbid); he is only prohibited from challenging the
foundational principle of Neozionism.

(18) “Still all of us Neozionists have in common” (and so forth). This
is the G-dspeed blessing for Neozionism. The dangers with which we are
confronted are many and great, and we will not be able to surmount
them unless we rise above all our internal divisions. Neozionism is
the movement of Jews of all streams who endeavor to do everything in
their power to continue the Golden Chain. Be strong and courageous.

[Tell it like it is.]

Post by ZionostWarrior
BS"D
Background and Clarifications to the Neozionist Manifesto
In this document the ideas behind each section of the manifesto are
explained in more detail. Expressions requiring background or
clarifications are brought forth between quotes, and subsequently the
explanations.
“Zionism is not a new creation.” One of the big lies of the anti-
Zionists that have taken hold in our day is the idea that Zionism is a
colonial settler movement of 19th-century Europeans. This lie,
combined with the “Palestinian nation” lie, has the purpose of
presenting the Jews in the Land of Israel as a foreign implant in the
region destined for expulsion (G-d forbid) by the “indigenous
Palestinians” just as the Europeans were expelled from all their
colonies. Like every big lie, this lie needs to be based on some
kernel of truth, and here the truth is that of the renewal of Jewish
nationalism in the 19th century by inspiration from the European
nationalist movements. However, the full truth is that Zionism already
existed in antiquity, and in the 19th century was only renewed, not
created ex nihilo. We must emphasize this truth by means of a
historiography that divides Zionism into three periods: Paleozionism,
Mesozionism and Neozionism.
“However, that Zionism had among its principles the idea that the
nation of Israel was to be a nation like all other nations, thereby
forcing itself to cleave to the fashions of the nations.” This is
Mesozionism’s most prominent and decisive characteristic. Mesozionism
had three guiding principles: the inhabitation of the Land of Israel,
the raising of political sovereignty for the nation of Israel and the
transformation of the nation of Israel into a nation like all other
nations. The first principle was never broken, not even for those who
believed the political sovereignty of the nation of Israel would
return only at the hands of Mashiah Tsidkenu. The second principle
became a bone of contention among different factions in the nation of
Israel—most Ultra-Orthodox and lehavdil the assimilationists were
inclined to negate it, while Religious Zionism and a few of the Ultra-
Orthodox joined hand with the secular Zionists in the work for
building a national home for the Jews in the Land of Israel. The third
principle was the most revolutionary of them all, and in contradiction
to the belief of every believing Jew, because the Torah says the
nation of Israel is special among all the nations. Therefore even the
religious Zionists could not accept all of Mesozionism wholeheartedly;
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Cook zt"l named [Meso]zionism “The
Beginning of Redemption” and not “The Redemption” for that reason.
Howbeit, more than the principle of “A Nation Like All Other Nations”
affected the relationship of Mesozionism with the Jewish religion, it
carried within it the end of Mesozionism itself. Whereas, in Binyamin
Ze’ev Herzl’s time, widespread world opinion was not against the idea
of a state exclusive to a particular nation (“France is the state of
the French nation” and similar), now in our day the very expressing of
that idea leads to the one expressing it being decried as a “racist.”
Mesozionism’s striving for the creation of a state for the Jews is
confronted with this generation’s order for “a multicultural state,”
and the Zionist Jew is forced to choose either of the two. There are
those who choose to keep their “progressive” status in the eyes of the
world and abandon the idea of a state exclusive to the Jews—these are
the Post-Zionists; in contrast to them, there are those who prefer to
ignore the opinion of the non-Jews and cling to the idea of Israel as
the state of the Jews—those are the Neozionists. The conflict between
our day’s political fashion and the need to secure Jewish sovereignty
has put Mesozionism on a crossroads.
“As well as to insane laws of warfare that are of no use against an
enemy totally lacking in morality.” The Arab enemy does not recoil
from any means—it puts its fighters and weapons inside the civilian
population, so that we would hesitate to harm them, or if we still
harm them, even by accident, it could present our “cruelty” before the
world, and hold our fighters as defendants at the courts of
international “law.” But the Torah’s laws of warfare, it is evident,
are much more progressive than the “ethical” laws of the modern
period, and only by returning to them can a conscience-lacking enemy
like ours be defeated. They state that we are guilty if we have harmed
the civilian population only when the other side takes care to
separate it from the fighters; if the other side does not, then the
guilt belongs to the leaders of the other side.
“Out of the recognition of Jews—both secular and religious.” The
manifesto wishes to draw near and not to repel—to draw the Children of
Israel near to each other, and to repel them only from the non-Jews.
Neozionism receives unto itself all of the nation of Israel who
recognize the existential danger with which we are confronted; every
Jew, be he secular or national-religious or Ultra-Orthodox. The writer
of the document is national-religious and expects the coming of
Mashiah Tsidkenu (soon in our days, amen), but despite that recognizes
that the choice of the suitable Jew is in the hands of HaShem, and
that, until then, rash steps that could lead to civil war (G-d forbid)
must be avoided. The vision of the manifesto is that, in the period of
transition until the coming of Mashiah Ben David, the state of Israel
shall become a Jewish Republic, in which only Jews have political
rights. All the problems must be approached only out of love of fellow
Jew and giving a good account of the nation of Israel. Above all it
must be remembered that in our day there is not a single Jew who
commits transgressions out of a wish to anger HaShem, but only because
of the sicknesses of latter days, such as unbelief. Truly wicked are
only those Jews who cast themselves outside the collective.
(In the footnote) “Because of the danger that the Accuser could bring
it before the Holy One, Blessed Is He, in order that He might withdraw
mercy from us.” That, if we flail the Torah as the document that gives
us the right to the Land of Israel, the Accuser will say to the Holy
One, Blessed Is He, “Do they indeed keep it as they should?”, and then
the Holy One, Blessed Is He, might decree exile upon us (G-d forbid).
As much as possible, no word should be given to the mouth of the
Accuser.
“From the time the Jews recognize the rightness of the Zionist way,
they will take the steps necessary” (and so forth). For it is clear to
any observer of the history of the state of Israel, that the
deterioration of our condition is rooted first and foremost in the
loss of our faith in the rightness of our way. The more we have
conceded our arguments regarding our right to a state of the Jews in
the Land of Israel, the more the non-Jews have found courage to step
on us like a doormat, until we have arrived today at a situation where
every petty statesman coming from the countries of the non-Jews to us
for a visit sees no wrong in preaching to us, even on our internal
affairs. Our situation will improve only when we believe that the idea
of a state of the Jews in the Land of Israel is justified from start
to finish.
(1) “In all the areas of Greater Israel.” That is, Judea, Samaria and
Gaza too, and even the eastern bank of the Jordan (which was supposed
to become part of the national home after World War One). There are
those who might say that the last of these is an excessive demand, but
as the Arab enemy puts no limit to its demands, there is no shame in
our reacting by the same token.
(2) Why does this section come, which relates to other nations? In
order to make clear that Neozionism’s demand of a state exclusive to
the Jewish nation is not something that only the national of Israel
deserves, but any other nation does. This section is part of the
negation of the idea of multiculturalism, and it situates Neozionism
as part of the direction of sane nationalism. That affair will be made
(3) The idea that more than one nation can live peacefully under the
same political framework is the brain-child of Utopians—people who do
not permit facts like human nature to disturb their rose-colored
dreams. The realists know that the multicultural idea is a recipe for
untold suffering, and they can prove it with many examples: beginning
with relatively good cases like the Flemish and Walonians in Belgium,
through the daily suffering that the indigenous peoples of India,
Thailand and Europe undergo at the hand of the Muslim settler-
colonists in their lands, and ending with terrible holocausts like
that of Rwanda. In order to prevent abundant bloodshed, the realists—
the Neozionists being among them—advocate the idea of an exclusive
state for every nation. This exclusivism is ensured by withholding
citizenship from anyone who is not of the nation of the particular
state; if someone of the other nation makes demands for equal rights,
he is expelled from the state. It will be argued that no one would be
willing to live in inferior status. The reply to that is, that there
is no necessity for him to be of inferior status—he need only emigrate
to his nation-state, and there he will be a citizen and all others
will be of inferior status. However, it is not the intention of this
idea to state how the order of the world should be—Neozionism goes by
this idea whether other nations do the same or not.
(4) “A special and rooted connection to the Land of Israel.” There is
no other land of which a Jew could say that it is his, and there is no
other nation that cannot lead a full existence outside the Land of
Israel.
(7) The “Palestinian nation” began to appear in the writings and
discourse of the ...
read more »

Those who believe in Abraham, Moses, and
Christ are not Zionists and Jihadists. They are the people of Israel
and Palestine.

[Tell it like it is.]

On Jun 1, 11:00 am, "Tell it like it is."

Post by ZionostWarrior
BS"D
Background and Clarifications to the Neozionist Manifesto
In this document the ideas behind each section of the manifesto are
explained in more detail. Expressions requiring background or
clarifications are brought forth between quotes, and subsequently the
explanations.
“Zionism is not a new creation.” One of the big lies of the anti-
Zionists that have taken hold in our day is the idea that Zionism is a
colonial settler movement of 19th-century Europeans. This lie,
combined with the “Palestinian nation” lie, has the purpose of
presenting the Jews in the Land of Israel as a foreign implant in the
region destined for expulsion (G-d forbid) by the “indigenous
Palestinians” just as the Europeans were expelled from all their
colonies. Like every big lie, this lie needs to be based on some
kernel of truth, and here the truth is that of the renewal of Jewish
nationalism in the 19th century by inspiration from the European
nationalist movements. However, the full truth is that Zionism already
existed in antiquity, and in the 19th century was only renewed, not
created ex nihilo. We must emphasize this truth by means of a
historiography that divides Zionism into three periods: Paleozionism,
Mesozionism and Neozionism.
“However, that Zionism had among its principles the idea that the
nation of Israel was to be a nation like all other nations, thereby
forcing itself to cleave to the fashions of the nations.” This is
Mesozionism’s most prominent and decisive characteristic. Mesozionism
had three guiding principles: the inhabitation of the Land of Israel,
the raising of political sovereignty for the nation of Israel and the
transformation of the nation of Israel into a nation like all other
nations. The first principle was never broken, not even for those who
believed the political sovereignty of the nation of Israel would
return only at the hands of Mashiah Tsidkenu. The second principle
became a bone of contention among different factions in the nation of
Israel—most Ultra-Orthodox and lehavdil the assimilationists were
inclined to negate it, while Religious Zionism and a few of the Ultra-
Orthodox joined hand with the secular Zionists in the work for
building a national home for the Jews in the Land of Israel. The third
principle was the most revolutionary of them all, and in contradiction
to the belief of every believing Jew, because the Torah says the
nation of Israel is special among all the nations. Therefore even the
religious Zionists could not accept all of Mesozionism wholeheartedly;
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Cook zt"l named [Meso]zionism “The
Beginning of Redemption” and not “The Redemption” for that reason.
Howbeit, more than the principle of “A Nation Like All Other Nations”
affected the relationship of Mesozionism with the Jewish religion, it
carried within it the end of Mesozionism itself. Whereas, in Binyamin
Ze’ev Herzl’s time, widespread world opinion was not against the idea
of a state exclusive to a particular nation (“France is the state of
the French nation” and similar), now in our day the very expressing of
that idea leads to the one expressing it being decried as a “racist.”
Mesozionism’s striving for the creation of a state for the Jews is
confronted with this generation’s order for “a multicultural state,”
and the Zionist Jew is forced to choose either of the two. There are
those who choose to keep their “progressive” status in the eyes of the
world and abandon the idea of a state exclusive to the Jews—these are
the Post-Zionists; in contrast to them, there are those who prefer to
ignore the opinion of the non-Jews and cling to the idea of Israel as
the state of the Jews—those are the Neozionists. The conflict between
our day’s political fashion and the need to secure Jewish sovereignty
has put Mesozionism on a crossroads.
“As well as to insane laws of warfare that are of no use against an
enemy totally lacking in morality.” The Arab enemy does not recoil
from any means—it puts its fighters and weapons inside the civilian
population, so that we would hesitate to harm them, or if we still
harm them, even by accident, it could present our “cruelty” before the
world, and hold our fighters as defendants at the courts of
international “law.” But the Torah’s laws of warfare, it is evident,
are much more progressive than the “ethical” laws of the modern
period, and only by returning to them can a conscience-lacking enemy
like ours be defeated. They state that we are guilty if we have harmed
the civilian population only when the other side takes care to
separate it from the fighters; if the other side does not, then the
guilt belongs to the leaders of the other side.
“Out of the recognition of Jews—both secular and religious.” The
manifesto wishes to draw near and not to repel—to draw the Children of
Israel near to each other, and to repel them only from the non-Jews.
Neozionism receives unto itself all of the nation of Israel who
recognize the existential danger with which we are confronted; every
Jew, be he secular or national-religious or Ultra-Orthodox. The writer
of the document is national-religious and expects the coming of
Mashiah Tsidkenu (soon in our days, amen), but despite that recognizes
that the choice of the suitable Jew is in the hands of HaShem, and
that, until then, rash steps that could lead to civil war (G-d forbid)
must be avoided. The vision of the manifesto is that, in the period of
transition until the coming of Mashiah Ben David, the state of Israel
shall become a Jewish Republic, in which only Jews have political
rights. All the problems must be approached only out of love of fellow
Jew and giving a good account of the nation of Israel. Above all it
must be remembered that in our day there is not a single Jew who
commits transgressions out of a wish to anger HaShem, but only because
of the sicknesses of latter days, such as unbelief. Truly wicked are
only those Jews who cast themselves outside the collective.
(In the footnote) “Because of the danger that the Accuser could bring
it before the Holy One, Blessed Is He, in order that He might withdraw
mercy from us.” That, if we flail the Torah as the document that gives
us the right to the Land of Israel, the Accuser will say to the Holy
One, Blessed Is He, “Do they indeed keep it as they should?”, and then
the Holy One, Blessed Is He, might decree exile upon us (G-d forbid).
As much as possible, no word should be given to the mouth of the
Accuser.
“From the time the Jews recognize the rightness of the Zionist way,
they will take the steps necessary” (and so forth). For it is clear to
any observer of the history of the state of Israel, that the
deterioration of our condition is rooted first and foremost in the
loss of our faith in the rightness of our way. The more we have
conceded our arguments regarding our right to a state of the Jews in
the Land of Israel, the more the non-Jews have found courage to step
on us like a doormat, until we have arrived today at a situation where
every petty statesman coming from the countries of the non-Jews to us
for a visit sees no wrong in preaching to us, even on our internal
affairs. Our situation will improve only when we believe that the idea
of a state of the Jews in the Land of Israel is justified from start
to finish.
(1) “In all the areas of Greater Israel.” That is, Judea, Samaria and
Gaza too, and even the eastern bank of the Jordan (which was supposed
to become part of the national home after World War One). There are
those who might say that the last of these is an excessive demand, but
as the Arab enemy puts no limit to its demands, there is no shame in
our reacting by the same token.
(2) Why does this section come, which relates to other nations? In
order to make clear that Neozionism’s demand of a state exclusive to
the Jewish nation is not something that only the national of Israel
deserves, but any other nation does. This section is part of the
negation of the idea of multiculturalism, and it situates Neozionism
as part of the direction of sane nationalism. That affair will be made
(3) The idea that more than one nation can live peacefully under the
same political framework is the brain-child of Utopians—people who do
not permit facts like human nature to disturb their rose-colored
dreams. The realists know that the multicultural idea is a recipe for
untold suffering, and they can prove it with many examples: beginning
with relatively good cases like the Flemish and Walonians in Belgium,
through the daily suffering that the indigenous peoples of India,
Thailand and Europe undergo at the hand of the Muslim settler-
colonists in their lands, and ending with terrible holocausts like
that of Rwanda. In order to prevent abundant bloodshed, the realists—
the Neozionists being among them—advocate the idea of an exclusive
state for every nation. This exclusivism is ensured by withholding
citizenship from anyone who is not of the nation of the particular
state; if someone of the other nation makes demands for equal rights,
he is expelled from the state. It will be argued that no one would be
willing to live in inferior status. The reply to that is, that there
is no necessity for him to be of inferior status—he need only emigrate
to his nation-state, and there he will be a citizen and all others
will be of inferior status. However, it is not the intention of this
idea to state how the order of the world should be—Neozionism goes by
this idea whether other nations do the same or not.
(4) “A special and rooted connection to the Land of Israel.” There is
no other land of which a Jew could say that it is his, and there is no
other nation that cannot lead a full existence outside the Land of
Israel.
(7) The “Palestinian nation” began to appear in the writings and
discourse of the ...
read more »

                              Those who believe in Abraham, Moses, and
Christ are not Zionists and Jihadists. They are the people of Israel
and Palestine.

Israel is the Israel of Jacob (Israel),
Moses , and Christ if not Zionism will risk going the way of
Communism, Naziism, and every other secular, racist and fascist
state.
http://www.biblestudysite.com/markis.htm
If France is french, if Spain is spanish,
if England is english, If Poland is polish, if Russia is russian, then
Israel is jewish.