National Self-Determination in Israel Requires “Regime Change”
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
National self-determination in Israel has been violated by the anti-Zionist policy of “Land for Peace” (LFP). Like his predecessor, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wedded to this left-wing inspired policy. However, by virtue of his being the leader of the Likud Party, which most Israelis mistakenly deem Zionist, he has become the greatest danger to Israel's survival. (Tzippi Livni would not have dared endorse a Palestinian state as Bibi explicitly did on June 14, 2009.)
In pursuing LFP with the Palestinian Authority (PA), Netanyahu has been outsmarted by the Arabs. While he sees that the success of LFP requires the cooperation of the Arabs, the Arabs see that the success of this policy would kill the goose that has laid their golden eggs! I allude to the hundreds of millions of dollars the Arabs have received each year from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, thanks to PA’s unceasing terrorist attacks. The difference in perception consists in the fact that terrorism pays, whereas peace sucks.
The biggest suckers are the Israelis, who have paid in blood and treasure for the intellectually bankrupt policy of “land for peace.” Their leaders have also fostered the absurd notion that this policy is also mandated by democracy, a notion that misleads Israelis who proudly believe they live in a democracy. After all, in what democracy do voters have a choice between 33 parties to lead their country? Our misled Israelis ignore the fact that no matter which party (or party coalition) has been elected to lead their country since 1993, the government invariably pursues the policy of “land for peace,” even though this policy has resulted to date in 15,000 Jewish casualties!
It’s obvious that changing parties has not stopped Israel’s territorial retreat or even diminished worldwide hostility toward the Jewish state. It seems that more important than Jewish casualties is the preservation of Israel's inept system of multiparty cabinet government, the result of Proportional Representation with a low electoral threshold, which this has endowed Israel with the reputation of being a democracy—than which nothing is more sacred.
It matters not that after exercising their political freedom on Election Day, the citizens of Israel actually relapse into servitude, forced to experience the undeviating and degrading policy of “land for peace” that has soaked Israel in Jewish blood.
How charming are the new parties that so often spring up in democratic Israel thanks to its low electoral threshold. Too bad they invariably fall in lock-step with the policy of "land for peace" which Israel’s leaders have imposed on their people. But what more can be expected of Israeli prime ministers who prefer to appease the murderers of Jewish men, women, and children rather than kill them? Of course, these cretins and cravens can provide all sorts of excuses for their cowardice and imbecility. Like Muslims, they adopt the pose of victimhood vis-à-vis the Great White Father, Uncle Sam, on whose arms and alms they rely for their salvation. Lacking heart or spiritedness, they also lack intellect—a teaching of C. S. Lewis’s charming little book The Abolition of Man, one of whose chapters is entitled “men without chests.”
Israel’s political system has not produced men with chests, men who are not enthralled by the policy of territory for peace. Israel therefore needs much more than another multiparty election. Needed is nothing less than “regime change,” and this can only be initiated by the people, a people fed up with Israel’s obsolete and decrepit system of government.
The question then arises, “How can Israelis, proud of their democracy, be aroused to want regime change? Obviously, one must first show that Israeli democracy as a myth. This I have done in books and in countless articles. Since polls have indicated that 90% of the public regards Israel’s government as corrupt, as consisting of job-seekers animated by personal and partisan interests instead of the common good, the public opinion required for regime change exists, but it needs to be galvanized. For this purpose one needs a man—or a woman—with a chest.
He or she will find helpful ideas in Eric Hoffer, The True Believer as well as in present writer’s book The Myth of Israeli Democracy. The latter elucidates the main ideas and general structure of a normative democracy based on Judaic principles further elaborated in various books of mine. I suggest that a small team consisting of respected and talented men and women be formed to initiate a Jewish movement for regime change.
National self-determination in Israel requires a Judaic reconstruction of the state. To my inevitable nay-Sayers I conclude with these words of the Alter of Kelm: “Ask not if a thing is possible; ask only if it is necessary.”☼
=============
=============
Posts
