Patriotism
By Guy Rakover
When members of parliament call for the destruction of the state you have to wonder if the system of government is flawed. When officials call for rebellion and civil strife the structure is in danger of collapse. The source of the existence of all political systems is the belief in that system, in the institution or state that it represents. Patriotism is essential for the survival and advancement of the modern state.
I believe that our state has the loosest definition of the term Treason then any other state in the world. Where else can a member of parliament meet with enemy heads of state without permission and encourage them to invade? How can an elected official sit in the parliament when he calls for those who elected him to rebel? The freedom given to Arab members of parliament to openly declare their disdain for the State of Israel is a phenomenon that we have let go on too long.
The open rebellion that has developed among the Israeli-Arab communities has reached a point where their propaganda has successfully brainwashed a substantial percentage of the Jewish population. What started as an attempt at a purer democracy has become the relinquishing of an open governmental national body, the parliament that dictates the status of the daily lives of the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel, to the enemy who uses every opportunity to express its hatred for Israel and its desire to see her perish from the earth.
The most significant damage this has to our society is that Israelis begin feeling guilty for building a state here in the land of Israel. After they have been convinced of this fact through the Arab media, they start to see themselves as the enemy does: evil Zionist invaders. This then spirals into Jewish media’s depiction of Israeli soldiers as to blame, religious settlers as evil and the barrier to peace and dirties the names of our fathers who founded our modern state.
The Arabs are winning the war. They have successfully turned us against our own. Those most distanced from our traditions and influenced by this propaganda now see religious Zionist Jews settling our land, despite the dangers of the Arab enemy around us, as the barrier to peace, rather then the source of our strength and the future of our existence.
Who are we becoming? What have we come to when Jews choose to side with the enemy against their own brothers? This behavior is reminiscent of Hellenistic Jews during the times of the Maccabbees who tried to help the Greeks defeat the rebellion. Those Jews probably thought that they were doing what was best for the people, but in reality they were helping the enemy achieve their goal: the end of the Jews.
Why do we fight our identity? Why do we let the other nations make us feel ashamed of our right to fight for our homeland and to take pride in our traditions? We must be patriots! We must defend our home as the Jewish state it is, and bar enemies from participating in our parliament. Jew or Arab, treason is treason. The Jew who declares that we are Zionist invaders is the most dangerous of all. Anyone who wishes to participate in the development of our state must be interested in its future, and above all, a patriot.
3 Comments:
I join in your wish for an Israel that is united in purpose. I think there is a solution to the problem that you pose, and I think it runs deeper than enforcing a stricter definition of treason.
It seems unlikely that you can have a society comprised exclusively of people committed to the same goal. The very idea of democracy is to permit different voices to be heard, and there is no corrolary that requires those voices to first promise to be patriotic. Thomas Jefferson said that a country should have a revolution every ten years, I think in response to a concern similar to yours that a society's goals get diluted from complacency and frustrated by people who don't share the same motives. He also believed that power corrupts those who hold it for too long, and they lose sight of the goal.
The Athenians had an interesting solution called ostraka (root of the word "ostracize"). They would vote every year to expel one person from Athens for a ten year period. The person who received the most votes was thrown out, and it usually wound up being a leading citizen who had become too much of a negative or polarizing influence. The concept was that it was better to isolate negative influences to prevent them from interfering with the group's effort to advance the state of the society. In Israel there are many people who wish its destruction, both Arab and Jew. Indeed, many of the most religious Jews in Israel reject its very existence (while accepting the benefits of residing there).
What is the answer? The most successful society is one that enables the goals of the majority of its citizens to become the policy of the state, without unduly trampling on the rights of the minority. Conversely, the special interests of the minority cannot be permitted to prevent the hopes and dreams of the minority from being accomplished. The parliamentary system is well suited to this, but only if enough people vote to be sure that the parliamentary majority truly reflects the will of the majority of the citizenry.
Above all, it takes a strong leader to rally the population to a cause, with a set of principles and beliefs that reflect those of the majority. Maybe that is where you come in, Guy/Garrett! It makes me proud to read your well-reasoned postings, and I am pleased that you have found a broader outlet for your ideas. It enables those of us who share your ideology but are not in proximity to be able to participate in the discussion.
An interesting piece but in my opinion, your answers to an Israel-wide problem of the wrong message being brought across, do not align with the belief that Israel should run as a democratic state with freedom of speech as a norm.
"When members of parliament call for the destruction of the state you have to wonder if the system of government is flawed. When officials call for rebellion and civil strife the structure is in danger of collapse."
I would say quite the opposite. When any Israeli (MK or ordinary citizen, whether they are Jew, Muslim or other), call for anything - whether it's the legalisation of drugs or the destruction of the state - it means the system is working, because it means everyone has freedom to express what he's feeling. If you take away the rights of some people, to express their feelings, then you take everyones' rights away, because while you don't like hearing things against Israel, others may not like hearing students protest against the rise in university fees etc etc. To quote Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That is the essence of a democracy and freedom of speech.
So instead of tightening the laws of what treason means or even banning certain people from speaking because we are scared of the effect this has, we should instruct and educate others of our views. In this way, the same susceptible people who hear anti-Israel opinions, also hear the flip side. Simply banning the people we don't like from speaking is a weak cop-out and can be put down to laziness or fear that our opinions aren't strong enough to convince people we are right.
I agree with Guy for the most part and I think a few things need to be made clear....
Israeli democracy is different than most others (and all others by far are not perfect). The priority should be in protecting the State even if it means adjusting the conventional definition of democracy to be a little self preserving. If we don't then our quest for democracy will sooner lead us to the destruction of our state via popular vote from the current minority (Arab Israelis) who populate much faster than Jewish Israelis. In saying that - Its easy to assume that the Jewish state will no longer be the Jewish state 20 years from now ... If democracy in its "true" form is protected.
In terms of free speech and democratic opinion versus redefining Treason - where should it end - Would it be ok if the majority in government suggested that all traces of Islam be removed from Israel? Would it be ok if our Prime Minister openly suggested to return all Arab Israelis in Jerusalem back to Jordan? Of course not, however as long as someone is suggesting relocating Jews or taking some action that will counter the preservation of a jewish nation - then thats simply democracy... I guess... Hard to beleive ;( How many times does the suggestion to destroy the state come up from member of other democracies around the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home