m***@walla.co.il
2008-06-03 12:21:06 UTC
"The argument that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews by virtue of
G-d's promise in the Torah cannot be made, because it is not open to
rational dispute," say the anti-Zionists. This indisputability, they
say, is the major flaw of the religious argument for Zionism. And I
say this is not a flaw at all, but a great strength.
There is an appearance of dialog, but it must be kept in mind that it
is only an appearance. Talk however much they may about "keeping an
open mind" and "the need to listen to the other's narrative", the anti-
Zionists are quite closed-minded against any Zionist arguments, be
they religious or secular, nor do they display much willingness to
listen to, let alone accept, the Zionist Jewish narrative. None of the
good that Zionism has done is of any import to them; they think the
Jewish State must be confined to tight borders at best, with Judea,
Samaria and Gaza ethnically cleansed (yes--anti-Zionists support
ethnic cleansing!) of all Jews, but now it is more fashionable to
demand the end of the Jewish State, in favor of a "secular, democratic
state with equality for all people".
The layman may therefore ask: Why then do the anti-Zionists push for
talks and negotiations between the Jews and the Arabs? The answer is,
it is not because of their rationality or kindness of heart, but the
opposite: for the anti-Zionists, making the Jews talk about Zionism is
the way of weakening the Zionists' confidence in their position. That
is the postmodern way of ideological warfare: make your enemy doubt
his position, thereby destroying him from within. The pressure on the
Zionists to consider themselves and their enemies to be equivalent is
a ruse to shatter the Zionists' confidence in the rightness of
Zionism. No better proof of this exists than the "sulha gatherings" of
Jewish and Arab youths, ostensibly in the spirit of peacemaking. In
those gatherings, the Jews say, "We believe the Israeli occupation of
Palestine to be the greatest obstacle to peace"; and the Arabs say in
reply, "We agree with the Jews". The Jewish point of view is thus
thrown under the bus.
In the view of these facts, it is clear that the religious argument is
the best and most vital weapon in the Jew's arsenal. The
indisputability of the argument from the Torah is not a bug, but a
feature: an immovable anchor protecting the Zionist from the gushing
winds of the faux-dialog to which the anti-Zionists constantly invite
him.
It is said that arguing from religion is primitive. Supposedly the
anti-Zionists are so progressive, such hard-nosed realists. That is
false: they refuse to consider the material and pragmatic good that
Zionism has produced (in technological advances, for example,
including new life-saving medicines), instead turning to the primitive
arguments of "indigenous land rights", "no peace without justice" and
other concepts that have no place in pragmatist discourse. Therefore,
since they lie when they say they are progressive and realistic (just
as they lie about their open-mindedness and readiness for dialog), the
Jews have license to respond with their idealistic argument, the
argument from the Torah.
Anti-Zionism is today's form of Jew-hatred. The anti-Zionists are all,
without exception, the Nazis of our day, and dialog with them is
equivalent to bargaining with the Sitra Achara. Those of the anti-
Zionists who do not want to kill us directly are helping the ones who
do. No compromise on one single inch of the Land of Israel, and no
compromise on the Jewishness of the State of Israel. Israel: the state
of the Jews, set up by the Jews, for the Jews. And whoever disagrees
with the idea that Israel is the Jewish State cannot be permitted to
live in it, but must be expelled abroad. No matter what Political
Correctness says. We Jews did not return from 2,000 years of exile to
set up a state of all its citizens.
Israel at 60!
Long may she prosper!
And fast may her enemies go to hell!
G-d's promise in the Torah cannot be made, because it is not open to
rational dispute," say the anti-Zionists. This indisputability, they
say, is the major flaw of the religious argument for Zionism. And I
say this is not a flaw at all, but a great strength.
There is an appearance of dialog, but it must be kept in mind that it
is only an appearance. Talk however much they may about "keeping an
open mind" and "the need to listen to the other's narrative", the anti-
Zionists are quite closed-minded against any Zionist arguments, be
they religious or secular, nor do they display much willingness to
listen to, let alone accept, the Zionist Jewish narrative. None of the
good that Zionism has done is of any import to them; they think the
Jewish State must be confined to tight borders at best, with Judea,
Samaria and Gaza ethnically cleansed (yes--anti-Zionists support
ethnic cleansing!) of all Jews, but now it is more fashionable to
demand the end of the Jewish State, in favor of a "secular, democratic
state with equality for all people".
The layman may therefore ask: Why then do the anti-Zionists push for
talks and negotiations between the Jews and the Arabs? The answer is,
it is not because of their rationality or kindness of heart, but the
opposite: for the anti-Zionists, making the Jews talk about Zionism is
the way of weakening the Zionists' confidence in their position. That
is the postmodern way of ideological warfare: make your enemy doubt
his position, thereby destroying him from within. The pressure on the
Zionists to consider themselves and their enemies to be equivalent is
a ruse to shatter the Zionists' confidence in the rightness of
Zionism. No better proof of this exists than the "sulha gatherings" of
Jewish and Arab youths, ostensibly in the spirit of peacemaking. In
those gatherings, the Jews say, "We believe the Israeli occupation of
Palestine to be the greatest obstacle to peace"; and the Arabs say in
reply, "We agree with the Jews". The Jewish point of view is thus
thrown under the bus.
In the view of these facts, it is clear that the religious argument is
the best and most vital weapon in the Jew's arsenal. The
indisputability of the argument from the Torah is not a bug, but a
feature: an immovable anchor protecting the Zionist from the gushing
winds of the faux-dialog to which the anti-Zionists constantly invite
him.
It is said that arguing from religion is primitive. Supposedly the
anti-Zionists are so progressive, such hard-nosed realists. That is
false: they refuse to consider the material and pragmatic good that
Zionism has produced (in technological advances, for example,
including new life-saving medicines), instead turning to the primitive
arguments of "indigenous land rights", "no peace without justice" and
other concepts that have no place in pragmatist discourse. Therefore,
since they lie when they say they are progressive and realistic (just
as they lie about their open-mindedness and readiness for dialog), the
Jews have license to respond with their idealistic argument, the
argument from the Torah.
Anti-Zionism is today's form of Jew-hatred. The anti-Zionists are all,
without exception, the Nazis of our day, and dialog with them is
equivalent to bargaining with the Sitra Achara. Those of the anti-
Zionists who do not want to kill us directly are helping the ones who
do. No compromise on one single inch of the Land of Israel, and no
compromise on the Jewishness of the State of Israel. Israel: the state
of the Jews, set up by the Jews, for the Jews. And whoever disagrees
with the idea that Israel is the Jewish State cannot be permitted to
live in it, but must be expelled abroad. No matter what Political
Correctness says. We Jews did not return from 2,000 years of exile to
set up a state of all its citizens.
Israel at 60!
Long may she prosper!
And fast may her enemies go to hell!