How to Describe the Self-hating Jew? – Op-Ed

You could conceivably quote the dubious opinions of Thomas Friedman and the New York Times relative to the State of Israel and the so-called “peace process” that began on the White House lawn, September,1993.

You could refer to the zoa.org OpEd, After Gaza, reviewing an article written by Ms. Oz-Salzberger that recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

You could direct them to an article by Leon Wieseltier that just appeared in The New Republic (TNR) of September 2, 2005. Excerpts from that article appear below. Weiseltier is commenting upon the withdrawal from Gaza. His opening paragraph reads:

“EVEN FACED WITH the idea of Greater Palestine, it is impossible not to rejoice in the defeat of the idea of Greater Israel. It was always a foul idea, morally and strategically. It promoted the immediate ecstasy of the few above the eventual safety of the many; it introduced the toxins of messianism and mysticism into the politics of a great modern democracy; it preferred chosenness to human rights; it subordinated laws to visions, and the Jewish state to the Jewish millennium, it worshipped soil in a primitive, almost Un-Jewish way. The settlers of the West Bank and Gaza are not a Jewish vanguard, they are a Jewish sect; and in their insistence that the destiny of their state and their society should be held hostage to the fulfillment of their metaphysical and historical conceptions, they have always displayed a sectarian self-love.”

Do we really have to go any further? How can one paragraph encompass so much self-hatred and hatred of one’s basic origins and the people from whence he obtained his genetic pool?

What exactly is Weiseltier saying?

“EVEN FACED WITH the idea of Greater Palestine, it is impossible not to rejoice in the defeat of the idea of Greater Israel.”

Weiseltier would rather Israel’s mortal enemy, sworn to her destruction, take over the territories and create a “Greater Palestine” than his own people. He abhors that the Jews should have the land G-d dedicated for them – not to mention the declarations of the world’s infinitesimal political powers like the British who rapidly changed its mind and the League of Nations whose Mandate was completely ignored by the United Nations.

“It was always a foul idea, morally and strategically.”

How dare this truly ignorant, godless man determine what is “foul” and declare what is strategically not viable!

“It promoted the immediate ecstasy of the few above the eventual safety of the many.”

Here this same self-hater resents and begrudges the great joy that the true believer experiences from returning to the biblical homeland of his people and the most likely possibility of sanctuary for his people persecuted and virtually castrated physically and mentally for almost 2000 years of Diaspora. And, in his delusion and ignorance, declares the many will be “safer” having given up Gaza and the rest of the territories.

“It introduced the toxins of messianism and mysticism into the politics of a great modern democracy.”

Here the true secularist steps completely forward in his disdain and abhorrence of anything smacking remotely of religion. G-d forbid anyone should believe in G-d! And how could a “great modern democracy” possibly encompass any religion rather than the mirage of “feel good” politics and moral standard?

“It preferred chosenness to human rights.”

How embarrassing to the secularist desperately trying to prove to his non-Jewish friends that he is just one of the boys. Of course, he could not claim G-d did not pick the Jews as his chosen people. Never mind that the entire non-Jewish community fully understands that divine act and either loves us or hates us as a result.

“It subordinated laws to vision”

Here he had the audacity to brag about the gross, illegal machinations of Ariel Sharon and how he dismissed anyone that disagreed with his suicidal policies, ignored the public mandate under which he was elected, shamelessly maneuvered an entire political disaster to protect his own hide and that of his sons. And Weiseltier now describes this fatal activity as a true democratic process now somehow resulting in indisputable “law.”

And that is only addressing the first paragraph of this disgraceful diatribe! You could read the rest, if you have the stomach, in TNR, September 2, 2005

Now what to do? Unfortunately the only thing I can do is make the paltry gesture of canceling my subscription to the New Republic magazine for publishing Weiseltier. Because, how far off could they be from his self-hating opinions?