(1) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime based on the primacy of consent or persuasion, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime based on the primacy of force or coercion. (To do so is to disarm the people of that democracy, while dignifying and encouraging the rulers of that tyranny.)
(2) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime based on candor and publicity, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime based on deception and secrecy.
(3) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime that upholds the dignity of the individual, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime that rejects the universal concept of human dignity.
(4) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime that honors peace agreements, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime that regards peace agreements as a mere interregnum, a period in which to prepare for the next war.
(5) It’s irrational for a democracy (or of any state) to continue to abide by an agreement repeatedly violated by the other party to that agreement, a fortiori when that other party is a tyranny.
(6) It’s irrational for a democracy to pursue a policy of territory for peace when the very offer of that territory arouses the contempt of the enemy and facilitates his hostile designs on that democracy.
(7) It’s irrational for a democracy to advocate the establishment on its own ancient territory a state whose culture is fundamentally opposed to that democracy, and whose population will soon exceed the population of that democracy.
(8) It’s irrational for a democracy to expect peace from the adherents of a religion whose validity depends on the subjugation of that democracy.
(9) It’s irrational for a democracy to advocate the establishment of a state on its borders when the rulers of that state have educated an entire generation of children to hate that democracy and to emulate suicide bombers.
(10) It’s irrational for that democracy to yield territory—something tangible—for a peace agreement which is revocable, especially when the other party to that agreement is a tyranny whose culture abhors the people of that democracy.
It follows from the preceding that the compromising attitude of “centrists” vis-a-vis the Israel-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally irrational, whereas the uncompromising attitude of “rightwing extremists” toward that conflict is perfectly rational!
So far as “leftists” are concerned, they are hardly worthy of serious consideration, unless one is interested in mental disorders. After eleven years of Oslo and years of suicide bombings, only the mentally retarded or morally depraved remain on the left end of the political spectrum.
Actually, “centrists” have one thing in common with leftists: neither can face the enormity of Evil. Although “centrists” acknowledge Evil with their lips, they lack the courage—more a matter of the heart than of the mind—to undertake the arduous task of uprooting Evil. It is their faintheartedness that underlies their compromising, hence irrational, attitude toward Israel’s implacable foes.
Clearly, Israel is a confused nation, lost in “politically correct” centrism. Surrounded by Evil, it turns again and again to generals for salvation, ignorant of the fact that erstwhile heroes may be moral pygmies, whose heroism on the battlefield may have been little more than glorified egoism.
A Critique of Centrists
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
The purpose of this article is to expose the misleading language of public discourse, specifically, of the labels pundits use to describe the attitudes of Israeli citizens and parties toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I will show that, within the context of this conflict, the labels “Left, “Right,” and “Center” distort political reality.
That conflict involves diametrically opposed regimes: Israel, a self-professed democracy, and the PLO-Palestinian Authority, an unequivocal tyranny. Accordingly, I shall set forth ten statements concerning the attitude of the former to the latter and draw logical conclusions.
(1) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime based on the primacy of consent or persuasion, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime based on the primacy of force or coercion. (To do so is to disarm the people of that democracy, while dignifying and encouraging the rulers of that tyranny.)
(2) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime based on candor and publicity, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime based on deception and secrecy.
(3) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime that upholds the dignity of the individual, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime that rejects the universal concept of human dignity.
(4) It’s irrational for a democracy, a regime that honors peace agreements, to negotiate with a tyranny, a regime that regards peace agreements as a mere interregnum, a period in which to prepare for the next war.
(5) It’s irrational for a democracy (or of any state) to continue to abide by an agreement repeatedly violated by the other party to that agreement, a fortiori when that other party is a tyranny.
(6) It’s irrational for a democracy to pursue a policy of territory for peace when the very offer of that territory arouses the contempt of the enemy and facilitates his hostile designs on that democracy.
(7) It’s irrational for a democracy to advocate the establishment on its own ancient territory a state whose culture is fundamentally opposed to that democracy, and whose population will soon exceed the population of that democracy.
(8) It’s irrational for a democracy to expect peace from the adherents of a religion whose validity depends on the subjugation of that democracy.
(9) It’s irrational for a democracy to advocate the establishment of a state on its borders when the rulers of that state have educated an entire generation of children to hate that democracy and to emulate suicide bombers.
(10) It’s irrational for that democracy to yield territory—something tangible—for a peace agreement which is revocable, especially when the other party to that agreement is a tyranny whose culture abhors the people of that democracy.
It follows from the preceding that the compromising attitude of “centrists” vis-a-vis the Israel-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally irrational, whereas the uncompromising attitude of “rightwing extremists” toward that conflict is perfectly rational!
So far as “leftists” are concerned, they are hardly worthy of serious consideration, unless one is interested in mental disorders. After eleven years of Oslo and years of suicide bombings, only the mentally retarded or morally depraved remain on the left end of the political spectrum.
Actually, “centrists” have one thing in common with leftists: neither can face the enormity of Evil. Although “centrists” acknowledge Evil with their lips, they lack the courage—more a matter of the heart than of the mind—to undertake the arduous task of uprooting Evil. It is their faintheartedness that underlies their compromising, hence irrational, attitude toward Israel’s implacable foes.
Clearly, Israel is a confused nation, lost in “politically correct” centrism. Surrounded by Evil, it turns again and again to generals for salvation, ignorant of the fact that erstwhile heroes may be moral pygmies, whose heroism on the battlefield may have been little more than glorified egoism.
Posted by Tiburon at November 23, 2004 09:47 PM