by Dr. Hanan Shai
The coronavirus crisis offers an opportunity, which must not be missed, to put Israel’s existence and security back on the footing of the country’s original liberal values.
Israeli flag, image via Pixy.org
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,732, September 6, 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Unlike other Western  democracies, Israel has had to face the coronavirus crisis at a time  when its social cohesion and governability have been weakened by a chain  of processes and events over recent decades that were propelled by the  values of progressive liberalism. The coronavirus crisis offers an  opportunity, which must not be missed, to put Israel’s existence and  security back on the footing of the country’s original liberal values.
Israel’s original values are grounded in the  morality of truth, freedom, mutual responsibility on the national level,  and justice, with the aim of forging a strong social-national entity on  that basis. Progressive liberalism, by contrast, denies the existence  of objective truth and views every social structure—from the family to  the nation itself—as an outcome of power and oppression. Such power and  oppression, according to progressive liberalism, must be eliminated.
Adherents of this philosophy believe, accordingly,  that Jewish Israel, as a nation-state whose values represent the old  social order, must disappear so as to clear the path for their own  values. This line of thinking is congruent with the argument made in the  last century that Judaism had to disappear so as to clear the path for  the values of the communist and Nazi social orders.
The campaign to dismantle Israel began in the late  twentieth century when a group of Israeli academics and journalists  presumptuously self-styled themselves as “the new historians.” Through  “the fabrication of Israeli history” (as Efraim Karsh put it), they  turned the Israeli side, which barely survived a pan-Arab attempt to  annihilate it a few years after the Holocaust, into the guilty party for  defeating those seeking its demise.
Despite academic and legal refutation of their  “research,” the “new historians” succeeded—along with artists and  writers such as Amoz Oz, who averred that “pure truth destroys  everything and does not build anything”—to puncture the fervent national  ethos of the establishment of the state of Israel, an ethos that united  Israeli and world Jewry.
Fabricating Israeli history paved the way to  fabricating the reasons for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This  involved transforming the conflict from an existential confrontation in  which one party (the Palestinians) categorically rejects the other’s  right to national self-determination into a territorial real estate  dispute that could be ended in a compromise-based peace.
Compromise is a supreme foundational value in  Jewish culture and in Western democracy, and most of the Israeli Jewish  public has consistently supported it, including during the Oslo “peace”  process. Ironically, even though it was the Palestinian leadership that  rejected the “Oslo compromise” (just as it had rejected the numerous  compromises offered over the course of the twentieth century), many  blamed Israel, not the Palestinians, for the failure of this process.  This enabled the Palestinians and their liberal-progressive backers to  amplify their century-long denial of the Jewish People’s right to  national self-determination.
The fact that the Guardian saw fit  to publish three articles in a single week questioning Israel’s right  to exist, like the one penned by American Jewish journalist Peter  Beinart, at a time when Britain is undergoing one of the worst health,  economic, and social crises in its modern history, points to the  obsessive mendacity of this campaign.
No less alarmingly, the illusion that the “era of  peace” and the technological revolution obviate the need to physically  control territory and defeat the enemy has driven the IDF’s top brass to  scrap not only the ground army, as maintained by Gen. (res.) Yitzhak  Brik, the sharpest critic of the defense establishment in recent years,  but also the IDF’s most precious asset: the doctrine of rapid victory  that enabled its impressive triumphs in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. It  was replaced by an esoteric doctrine of warfare that was concocted from  the ideas of leading poststructuralist philosophers and that denied  Israel the ability to end its wars with a quick, clear-cut, and  overwhelming win, as seen in the failed wars in Lebanon (2006) and the  Gaza Strip (2008-09, 2012, and 2014).
Meanwhile, “the constitutional revolution” dealt a  severe blow to the Israeli government’s ability to function. For while  this revolution helped make the moral values touted in Israel’s  Declaration of Independence part of Israel’s Basic Laws,  that contribution pales into insignificance compared to the damage  wrought by the concomitant “cultural revolution”—especially the making  of jurists into “the main agents of incorporating [progressive]  liberalism into the culture of the country” (as an Israeli law professor  described it). This fractured Israeli democracy and governance by  frequently overturning the laws and decisions of the elected legislative  and executive authorities in line with the values of progressive  liberalism. Those values directly clash with the values of the state of  Israel and its Basic Laws.
Thus the coronavirus, whose defeat requires the  intensive use of moral acumen in every domain, offers an opportunity to  go back to grounding the decision-making of the state’s three  authorities, and of its operative mechanisms, in its moral values as  articulated in the Basic Laws. This is a cultural-educational task of  the highest order, and it must be undertaken immediately. It will  require appointing a special project manager, as was done in the field  of public health. Then, while the health of the country’s citizens is  being protected, a vital effort will also be made to thwart the attempts  to dismantle and destroy those citizens’ national home.
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-existence-security/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
 
No comments:
Post a Comment