Who is Delegitimizing Israel?

by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

[Original title: „Wer delegitimiert Israel?“, July 6, 2011, in; translation by the author]

On July 11, 2011, the Jewish Forum for Democracy and against anti-Semitism organized a discussion meeting with the journalist Ulrich Sahm in Berlin. The title of the event was:

Current forms of hostility Israel: Boycott – blockade runners – mass rush to the borders – Unilateral proclamation of a palestinian State

The organizers outline the issue as follows:

„Classical“ wars are no longer fashionable. The Palestinian intifada and suicide bombings are „working“ no longer as intended. Fence, wall and other Israeli measures have an effect. Therefore, „warfare“ has been replaced by „lawfare“. The struggle against Israel is „fought“ in universities, the Internet, in the UN and in other ways on a global level. This unarmed struggle is intended to delegitimize Israel, damage its economy through boycotts, and to roll over Israel’s borders with mass rallies.

This is obviously the case. The Arab-Islamic strategy to encircle and cut off Israel from its lifelines had to remain toothless as long as only the Islamic world itself was committed to it, whereas it would become a mortal threat to Israel if Europe supported it, and indeed the Muslim infiltration strategy in Europe is aiming not least at achieving just that.

There is no effective defense against these forms of struggle against Israel. (…) For the existence of Israel and the prestige of the state even among „good friends“ and „allies“, this sophisticated propaganda war is a real danger, to which Israel is exposed almost helplessly.

This, too, is correct. The question, however, is: Why is there no defense? Why is it possible to delegitimize Israel and organize boycotts?

What is Israel doing that is considered so terrible? It maintains a powerful fighting army („Militarism“!), it is welcoming only immigrants belonging to its own people („Racism!“), has built a fence to lock out potential terrorists from its own national territory („Apartheid !“), and refuses to allow the immigration of millions of Muslims („Islamophobia“).

In short, Israel’s policy aims at preserving the political, ethnic, religious and cultural identity of the own nation, and is answered with exactly the same defamatory demagogic slogans Europeans with similar political views have to face. The principles underlying these policies are exactly the ones Europeans are expected to (and made) refuse, and which are supported by a tsunami of globalist, multiculturalist, liberal, and pacifist propaganda, re-education, and brainwashing. The result with regard to Israel is as I described it in a letter to my Israeli fellow blogger Lila:

You are rightly complaining that the Germans, and even more so other European nations, have too little understanding for your situation and give you advice whose realization would be tantamount to national suicide for Israel. Now I ask you: Our own nation is committed to a morbide policy of self-dissolution and self-destruction – how can you expect such a nation to have an understanding of another that is fighting for its existence? How can you expect a nation that is deliberately destroying the German character of Germany (and even believes this to be an expression of particularly high moral standards) to support a policy that aims at preserving the Jewish character of Israel? And why should nations who open their own countries to Muslim mass immigration agree with you when you deny the Palestinians‘ „right to return“, rather than to embrace them to play multiculti with them?

The propaganda, the boycott calls, the delegitimization strategy of the Palestinians against Israel could never work if the nations of Europe had not been trained to regard the consolidation of Western nations as something „evil“, and to abandon – for fear of the „Nazi bludgeon“ – their existential self-interest. Anyone committed to and propagating this kind of training is actively delegitimizing Israel.

Under these circumstances, it ought to be a surprise that – not only, but not least – just Jewish organizations are promoting this ideology in a particularly committed manner, and that they are using the bludgeon mentioned with particular frequency and aggressiveness against dissidents. (Let’s just remember, as one example of many, how the well-known Jewish representative Michel Friedman, like a North Korean show trial prosecutor, tried to push Thilo Sarrazin into the Nazi corner during a TV debate, just because he had rightly warned that Germany is abolishing herself. The obvious conclusion is that Friedman simply wants Germany to abolish herself.) There are a lot of major Jewish organizations actively promoting multiculturalism and mass immigration, although mass immigration in Europe means immigration of millions of Muslims, and although they cannot have an illusion that not only complete islamization, but even just the existence of merely a substantial Muslim voters block would force European governments to engage in an anti-Israeli policy and to join the boycott policy suggested by the Muslims, ultimately throttling Israel.

Maybe these people don’t deliberately intend to undermine Israel, but when in doubt they accept its destruction rather than accepting strong gentile nations. Anti-Semites tend to blame the Jews and Jewish organizations for being loyal primarily to Israel. This is obviously a false perception, and we would be better off if it was true. The emotional (and, as it seems, rather superficial) sympathy of Jews for Israel notwithstanding, most of them are by no means commited Zionists. Their sympathy for Israel seems to be limited by what they believe to be their interest as a Jewish minority in Europe and America, and, given the actual anti-White and anti-national bias of their policies, they would rather betray Israel’s interest than give up their destructive policy towards the white nations. (There is even a minority of mostly Leftist Jews actively condemning and fighting Zionism just because they entirely reject the very concept of the nation-state and don’t want their utopian globalist views to be compromised by considering the interest of any nation, and be it a Jewish one.) Whatever lip-service they spend or even true emotional ties to Israel there may be: They have made the choice not to sacrifice their petty, narrow-minded, and destructive minority strategy, but rather to sacrifice Israel. As a collateral damage, so to speak.

3 Kommentare zu „Who is Delegitimizing Israel?“

  • reinigungskraft:

    If the Jewish identity of a Jew is connected to Israel, an attack (real or phantasized) against Israel is an attack against his Jewish identiy. Which leads us to 3-5 theoretically possible effects:

    1. He could defend Israel to defend is identity.
    2. He could try to dissociate his identity from current Israel (or its leaders/policies).
    3. He could try to compensate by strengthening his Jewish identity in another way.
    4. He might manage to ignore it when it is a minor incident.
    5. He could dispel Jewishness from his identity.

    I believe this article is almost exclusively about the second case, while most Jews belong to the first. The best way to dissociate your identity from current Israel is to create and overemphizes moral differences and try to convince other Jews to follow your way. And above all: be loud when you do it.

    On the other hand, the best way to defend Israel depends on your position in society and is not necessarily connected to how your actions are perceived by others. When you are influencial you probably want to disguise your actions as best as possible.

    When you are really influential, you will have a sense for power and may try to use the attack on Israel to increase your influence even further and help your people somehow else or convice yourself that you are helping. After all,the fear of extinction and the perceived or imagined hostility is the backbone of modern Jewish society. So, as long as only few Jews are repelled enough to enter the fifth/second case, Jewish elite can tighten the screw to increase loyality to their people/Israel.

    These may be causes of a bias in perception of proportions as well as importance.

    whereas it would become a mortal threat to Israel if Europe supported it, and indeed the Muslim infiltration strategy in Europe is aiming not least at achieving just that.

    So, if Israel perishes, the infiltration of Europe will reduce? Somebody has to tell this those „When Israel falls, Europe will fall“ guys.

    When we talk about the dangers to the Jews by Muslim infiltration of Europe, we must never forget that Europe is the optimal location for Jews to attack and change the believes of Muslims. A Jewish controlled Europe is the most lethal threat to Islam ever and the most promising way to conquer (not just occupy) Muslim nations for good. Here in Europe ordinary Jews and Muslims are on the most equal terms and Muslims may find themselves at the mercy of a Jewish elite and their henchmen.

    In short, Israel’s policy aims at preserving the political, ethnic, religious and cultural identity of the own nation, and is answered with exactly the same defamatory demagogic slogans Europeans with similar political views have to face.

    Jews from the „right“ that I knew never got tired to state that Israel is behaving in the most humane way possible under the given situation and that other countries are not and that Islam is pure evil. They found their way to fight gentile nationalism while pushing for Zionism and Islamophobia and selling it as an universalist position ( = „moralĺy acceptable“ ).

  • reinigungskraft:

    it ought to be a surprise

    Only when you are educated under Jewish influence. I didn’t completely recognize that you changed the subject from Israel to European Muslim Immigration. It should not be surprising that Jewish organizations are more commited in pushing Muslim foreigners into Europe than Europeans are. Diaspora Jews are nomad people. When things turn really ugly, they will have lesser inhibitions to leave and go somewhere else than natural Europeans. They have lesser inhibitions to destroy European societies than Europeans have. Nobody would be astonished to hear that Turkish citizens of Germany care less about our buget deficit even though they depend heavier on governmental money.

    When it comes to Jews, it is something special. Many Europeans are unable to think anything „bad“ of them for the fear of being antisemitic. You can thing about Zionists or Israel or Banksters, but this (almost uniformally accepted) has „nothing to do with Jewishness“.
    Even for people who found their way out „of the matrix“, many of these mindblockades are still effective for some issues.

  • The Reason For The Six-Day War And Clarification Of The USSR Involvement

    In 1960 the USSR and China (along with all other Communist nations) signed onto the ‘Long-Range [Deception] Policy’,1 a strategy to confuse/disinform Western analysts on the true dangers of International Communism. The Arab nations decided to follow the Communists’ example and initiated a strategy of stealth whereby instead of the Middle East crisis being seen as a conflict between the underdog Israel facing a menacing Arab world (which wasn’t doing the ‘Arab cause’ any good), the new strategy created the ‘Palestinian entity’. So in 1964, at the first Arab League summit meeting in Cairo, the PLO was created by the Arab governments to advance the new strategy. Now Israel would be the bully on the block, stifling the aspirations of the newly minted ‘Palestinian People’. But how to make this new strategy come to life? With a little help from the USSR, that’s how.

    In the mid 1960s Russia and the Arabs coordinated a plan whereby Russia ‘misleads’ Egypt that Israel is massing troops on the border with Syria.2 Egypt responds by entering the demilitarized Sinai Peninsula and massing its troops close to its border with Israel. Israel takes the bait and launches a preemptive attack against Egypt. Jordan then attacks Israel. In the end Israel wins back the West Bank and Gaza and all the baggage those conquests came with. The Arab-USSR plan, known to history as the Six-Day War, worked. The Arab nations could now step back into the shadows and allow the ‘Palestinians’ do their work in delegitimizing Israel in world opinion.

    The main reason for the Arab governments‘ shift in strategy towards Israel in the early 1960s was the new military balance of power. Between the declaration of the Jewish state of Israel in 1948 and the early 1960s, a critical event occurred within Israel that gave Arab governments pause in their quest to destroy Israel: Israel had acquired the nuclear bomb. Hence the urgency for the change in the Arab governments‘ strategy towards Israel. Israel couldn’t nuke a PLO cell now, could it.

    After Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, to the world Israel pretended that the ‚Palestinian People‘ canard was true (though in Israeli schools children are taught the truth that no such distinct Palestinian people ever existed in the Ottoman Empire), since if they didn’t that would make those Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens.

    Israel must cease allowing Arab strategy to dictate her Middle East foreign policy; Israel will not succeed in playing the Arab governments’ game. Israel’s military actions in recent years have been disastrous for her image. Whether it is assassinations, lobbing missiles into apartment buildings or piracy on the high seas, Israel behaves like a cornered animal, lashing out unthinkingly at her PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah adversaries.3 Such behavior is doing Israel more harm than Arab governments could ever hope to achieve by their own overt devises, which was exactly the raison d’etre for the Arab-USSR strategy that handed to Israel the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.

    As a first step in regaining the moral high ground, Israel needs to change the Middle East discourse in her favor by admitting what the main goal of her Arab neighbors is, as admitted to by high-ranking PLO officers during moments of candor:

    „Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.“ — Yasser Arafat, 1993.

    „The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct „Palestinian people“ to oppose Zionism.

    For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.“ — Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, as reported in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (March 31, 1977).

    The world will always be swayed by the underdog in a conflict; it is human nature. In the current Middle East narrative the misidentified ‘Palestinians’ are the David to Israel’s Goliath. As a corrective to reclaiming the underdog designation in this conflict, Israel must first make clear that there are no such persons as ‘Palestinians’, as admitted to by the PLO and known to those who know their history of the Levant pre-World War I; and secondly, expose the Arab-USSR strategy that made Israel a pariah in world opinion.