Israel fights to survive

You can take a nation and subject it to constant warfare, deprivation and even inconceivably apocalyptic threats. It will survive. But the minute it stops believing in its own legitimacy, it dies.

In Israel today we are seeing an old conflict, even an ancient one, playing out: is the government created for its own purposes, or is the government an outward manifestation of the will of a collective, organic group united by shared values, called a culture?

Our modern view is that every person is equal, therefore whether you fill Paris with Somalis and Inuit or Japanese and Peruvians, those people are still “French.” Why? Because they live within the lines on the map that defines the political agreement known as “France.”

The old school way (which is experiencing a massively powerful revival) is to think that wherever they live, people of French descent share certain values and an outlook on life, and thus are a united people, both culture and heritage. Move them to the moon, or Somalia, and they’re still French.

Pundits and other witty and underpaid (thus bitter) people love to tear down anything they see as above them, so they are targeting the notion of the nation. They want to replace it with the nation-state, which is a subset of globalism; nation-states are lines on maps, not organic populations.

As a result, these people have made the claim that no country can assert its need to be of a single culture, and still be democratic/free/whatever.

In response, Rivlin announced that he would not conduct any further debate on the issue in the Knesset Presidium, claiming that the bill does not contravene the essential definition of Israel as a democratic country. He did, however, express his objections to the bill, which states that Israel’s democratic regime would be subordinate to the state’s Jewish identity, and which drops Arabic as an official language.

Both Jewish and Arab MKs from the left-wing parties, as well as other public figures, have expressed deep concern about the bill, sponsored by MK Avi Dichter (Kadima ), which, in practice, does away with the State of Israel’s constitutional foundation. They argue, justifiably, that the bill contravenes the Declaration of Independence and its principles, and threatens the delicate balance between the state’s national identity and its democratic and civil character. – Haaretz

Those who object to Israel as an organic population are wrong, of course. All that is required to be a democracy is to use democratic means of determining power. There is nothing in that definition about citizenship, or even who can vote. Any democratic power structure is a democracy.

What they’re objecting to is that this is a democracy by a population for its own self-interests, and not the globalist ideal of the nation-state where anyone can wander in, rent a room and be a citizen. The nation has higher values than commerce and obedience to leftist dogma, which makes it a threat to leftists and international finance.

Israel has successfully dodged this problem for sixty years but now it is coming home. As missiles rain from the sky, Iran develops a nuclear weapons program, and the USA waffles in its support, Israel must face the hard questions. Is it a state of Jews and Judaism, or merely another place to rent?

Coincidentally, all of us face this problem. If you build a nice place, others want to come stay there and take advantage of what you have made. In the process, they obliterate what you are, and leave behind more of what can be found anywhere else. Diversity is lost. Specialization is reversed.

31 Comments

  1. Mihai says:

    You seem to forget one thing: the boomerang effect.

    Zionists have been the ardent defenders of victimization and “human rights” throughout the whole of the 20th century, designed to wreck the stability of the Europeans. Yet, when it was their turn to apply these, they did exactly the opposite. So how can their own arguments not bounce back on them ? Don’t they pose as the victims of identity values and nationalism ?

    Also, this is not an unidimensional subject. If Israel has the right to survive and defend itself, so do Palestinians. If you cannot blame Israel for attacking the Arab states for its own survival, neither can you the Arabs for attacking Israel for theirs.

    1. Duane says:

      Very good points, Mihai, which bring attention to the essence of liberalism itself; primarily, that it transcends race and location. It’s such an unmerciful parasite that those who use it to undermine others will, too, be victims of it. Liberalism is its own master, any compromise made with it is in effect selling one’s soul (culture).

      1. 1349 says:

        A principle of chivalry comes to mind: “Respect your enemy and he will respect you in turn”.

      2. Liberalism is a meme, not a political idea, which you can see is true because most of the people who like liberalism are hipsters or overpaid salespeople.

        1. Paul Murray says:

          Hipsters and salesmen? Sure you are not thinking of objectivism? Actually – my bad: that’s generally salesmen and low-level management.

    2. Kirill Nenartovich says:

      “If you cannot blame Israel for attacking the Arab states for its own survival, neither can you the Arabs for attacking Israel for theirs”
      It is strange you see here a balanced situation. Israel’s goal is to survive and live in peace with neighbors. Arabs want to destroy Israel and openly announced their goal. I learned what is going on in Israel not from CNN, BBC, Fox, or whatever “news”, but by living there for ten years.

      1. crow says:

        I concur, Inspector.
        Israel does not have the luxury of indulging in detached philosophy.
        It exists on the brink of oblivion, with no place to run.
        I suspect, also, that once a race has been the subject of attempted genocide, it is somewhat biased against a recurrence.

        1. Inspector Ferret says:

          When Iraq fired scud missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud) at Israel, I was sitting in a sealed room wearing a gas mask, as my family also did, and reminiscing my Soviet Army service days, when I was a member of a crew launching exactly these 8K14 missiles. What a nice coincidence!

      2. Israel’s goal is to survive and live in peace with neighbors. Arabs want to destroy Israel and openly announced their goal.

        What most of our media pundits forget to mention is that Israel does not need its Arab neighbors. Israel has lifted its own ship and is succeeding. No idea what’s going on in Arab-land, but it doesn’t seem as promising. That and the standard deviation IQ gap suggests to me that Israel will always face resentment, and give little in return, for it lacks nothing that its neighbors have.

        1. ferret says:

          “No idea what’s going on in Arab-land, but it doesn’t seem as promising”
          While driving on Israeli roads I noticed there are no trees and grass in and around Arab villages; at the same time you can see expensive buildings there. They have different standards, morality, everything. Some of young guys, for example, commit violent crime in order to get imprisoned; this is the easy way of getting college degree while serving the sentence. Israeli prison offers education for free, is a drug free and safe zone; why not? Kind of weird, on the first glance, but… education is what we are all missing.

        2. YT says:

          Riiiiiight. It lifted its own ship. Sure. There have been no transfer payments, military support, stolen secrets and influence of US policy to make the dream of Zion real. Nope. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Yup.

          They support all sorts of diversity for the US and Europe but only jews may immigrate to Israel. Its a jewish state for sure. That also means that whatever they do is in bad faith by human standards.

          1. ferret says:

            “Its a jewish state for sure. That also means that whatever they do is in bad faith by human standards”
            So there are jewish standards and human standards.
            There are jews and there are humans.
            Interesting. I will be pondering.

          2. They support all sorts of diversity for the US and Europe but only jews may immigrate to Israel. Its a jewish state for sure.

            We should demand that same right for ourselves of course.

    3. If Israel has the right to survive and defend itself, so do Palestinians.

      That’s the point however. One geographical place, one people. Israel can be either for Jews or Palestinians, but not both. It makes sense to give it to its historical owners, the Israelites.

      1. Mike says:

        One nation, one tribe? Fine; let ‘em GTFO of the west, they don’t belong there. Oh, and what are the “Israelites” going to do with all those Khazars, Poles and Russians they imported?

        1. ferret says:

          Russians in Israel are not trying to create Russian state there, this is the difference. Palestinians, if they get their state, will be responsible for their own water, energy, medical, etc. supply. They understand it would be a big problem and are not so happy about the idea.
          Interestingly, Israel accepts immigrants according their religious beliefs, rather than the shape of nose or color. So no problem with Russians or Moroccans – they are Jewish.

  2. […] Israel fights to survive Nov 8th, 2011 by Brett Stevens. […]

  3. Decimator says:

    Israel has exercised great restraint over the years in my opinion. After being targeted for extermination By most of their neighbors, bias is understandable. The neighbors that aren’t overtly against them sure as hell aren’t for them. Israel has nearly always used force very effectively, despite restraint. Force has been accepted, When applied in the past, because, the recipients have been widely viewed as Mad. Political correctness and the like are responsible for the noose being tightened around their necks. It seems that the Jewish people are dissolving them selves in the acid of PC. It seems to me that PC and chivalry are all human constructs. I see the use of PC, chivalry and isims as reasoning with intent to manipulate. Israel has simply used far too much restraint. I once had a conversation with a Jordanian restaurant owner while enjoying some of his culture. In the conversation, he explained his culture to me. He told me that life was, Him against his brother. He and his brother against their father. Father and sons against cousins/family. Family against clan ect. I asked him about wives and children. He told me this. “If he were in a flood, he would stand on them to insure his own survival”. It was obvious to me that he and I didn’t share a moral standard. I explained to him that the food of his culture was worth while but I couldn’t accept his cultures moral standards. We still talk and define our cultures from time to time. We both are very clear that, if our culture ever conflict one of us would have to fail. Remember, we are motivated by fear of loss or desire to gain. A more Darwin approach would seam to be more effective to me. The duration of exposure to ugliness would be shorter and the outcome definitive. Frankly, this planet could use some culling anyway.

    1. A more Darwin approach would seam to be more effective to me.

      Our compassion is our downfall in the West, because it comes between cause and effect.

      1. Decimator says:

        precisely.

      2. crow says:

        Compassion is a tough one. In that if one does not display it, visibly, one is assumed to be a monster, by those who do display it visibly.
        The display is where the problem lies.
        And almost all of western culture (or what remains of it) is focused on social display.
        The appearance of something.
        Not the thing, itself.
        I sound like damaged record, sometimes :)

        1. ferret says:

          What’s wrong about compassion? I feel it always, display it rarely. But I’m not going to give money to a beggar who will spend it on marijuana, despite my belief that all criminals, lazy guys, etc., are sick. I don’t believe my help would heal. Same about starving kids in Africa, they don’t get this rised money anyway, and even if they got it, they would populate farther.
          I didn’t get what is about compassion.
          I sound like damaged record, always :)

          1. How do you make decisions? Logic or compassion? Thats the question here.

          2. ferret says:

            “How do you make decisions? Logic or compassion?”
            I prefer using logic + wisdom, at least I try. I cannot afford making decisions based on compassion – for not to regret afterwards. But I feel compassion anyway.

    2. 1349 says:

      “PC and chivalry are all human constructs”

      Chivalry is not PC and its purpose is survival, but in long term and large scale.

    3. YT says:

      “It seems to me that PC and chivalry are all human constructs. I see the use of PC, chivalry and isims as reasoning with intent to manipulate. Israel has simply used far too much restraint”

      Do some more homework then. Go look into the plethora of NGOs that push divershitty, depopulations, etc. There is certainly intent to manipulate but Israel is no victim in this case…you have been manipulated into believing so.

      Look people, there’s a reason that tribe has been booted from over 100 countries throughout history. Even ones that had cosmopolitan populations. For “some reason” they always seem to wear their welcome out as a group.

      Let them have their precious Mt. Zion on the condition they all go there and quit interfering with the rest of us dirty goyim heathens.

      1. Let them have their precious Mt. Zion on the condition they all go there and quit interfering with the rest of us dirty goyim heathens.

        One nation, one tribe. For every group this just makes sense and will lead to fewer wars because each group will have its own place.

      2. Decimator says:

        I don’t articulate my thought well most of the time. I wasn’t for or against Israel. I was simply conveying the idea that, to meet their goal of a nation of one people, they must be willing to engage relentlessly with their foes

        1. crow says:

          You know, you articulate very well indeed. Most of these over-educated commenters waffle on and it’s frequently incomprehensible, or ambiguous. It really is. Too many big words, far too many words to convey simple ideas…
          Humility is good, but over-doing it isn’t :)

  4. A. Realist says:

    Throughout history, people who should known better have enjoyed complaining about the Jews and inventing various farcical stories about the great Jewish conspiracy to steal all your stuff and drain the blood from your children.

    I say that these people should have known better because their motivation is entirely transparent, and it’s clear that they resent the success of our Jewish immigrants more than any negative effective the Jewish people are having. The average anti-Semite, smarting from his latest reprimand at his file-sorting job, will pass by a dozen gentiles engaged in the exact same behavior that in Jewish hands is presupposed to be destroying our Western civilization, but let one Jew drop a cigarette butt on the curb and all Hell will be unleashed.

    My dear fellows, instead of wasting your time complaining about the Jews, you would do better to emulate them. While the Europeans spent themselves in religious and liberal political wars, and let their smartest minds die childless in academic white towers, the Jews got busy reproducing new generations of professionals, and now they’re well represented in your societies. That is of course, not their fault that you let them in, and then proved lazier and dumber than them.

    It’s a high price we pay for stupidity and laziness among our own people then. If we emulated the Jewish tradition, we would send the unintelligent on hopeless missions in the desert while collecting our smartest together and making them wealthy and powerful over the dumber and lazier.

    1. crow says:

      I point to this argument as standard cannon-fodder for what will likely follow. It represents one man’s reasoned opinion. No more, no less.
      Yet leftists / jew-haters leap on such views merely to destroy them, without a moment’s consideration.
      I wonder why the views of an individual can generate such an intolerable irritation for so many. To the point where they must automatically wreck those views.

      A crow observes:
      Conservative: one who is able to tolerate views other than his/her own.
      Liberal: one who, under the label of ‘tolerant’, is unable to tolerate any view other than his/her own.

      Conservative: one who is able to leave things alone, unless those things become a problem.
      Liberal: one who is unable to leave things alone, because those things – merely by existing – are already a problem.

      Conservative: one who derives satisfaction from encountering like-minded people.
      Liberal: one who demands everyone is like-minded, and derives no satisfaction from anything.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.522 seconds