Sunday, December 23, 2012

The Left's Assault on Israel and American Sovereignty

Conservatives in America have been warning about the creation of a global government to replace American sovereignty for a long time. They have been regarded as paranoid. Yet these European officials are now explicitly saying this is their aim and are no longer hiding in the shadows. Hence the recent attacks on the constitutional rights of Americans freedom of speech, the right to bear arms
etc. Recent crises are being exploited to that end. The American constitution conflicts with the elites goal of a one-world government. The individual liberties enshrined in our constitution conflicts with the elites goal of a collectivist future. The existence of Israel as a Jewish state also conflicts with that goal. Tough times are ahead for freedom-lovers. Americans and Israelis must stand strong in the face of massive assaults on our liberties and our sovereignty.

Europe, Israel and the Nation-State

By Evelyn Gordon, Contentions, COMMENTARY

In what is becoming a standard trope for Israeli leftists, Haaretz columnist Ari
Shavit today decries the "savagery" of Israel's "rising political forces," who
are "alien to the new West's values." To which my response is, "thank
God"–because the "new West's values" are antithetical to the very existence of a
Jewish state. And if that sounds far-fetched, just consider European Commission
President Manuel Barroso's speech last week when he accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize on the European Union's behalf.

Quoting the commission's first president, Walter Hallstein, Barroso declared
that 20th-century history showed "The system of sovereign nation-states has
failed," because "through two world wars it has proved itself unable to preserve
peace." Therefore, Barroso said, "nations needed to think beyond the
nation-state" and create "supranational institutions." Later, he reiterated this
point by quoting one of the EU's founding fathers, Jean Monnet: "The sovereign
nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present," Monnet
said, and even the EU itself "is only a stage on the way to the organized world
of the future."

Nor is Barroso alone. Norwegian Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland
echoed this idea in his presentation speech. "After the two world wars in the
last century, the world had to turn away from nationalism," he declared. And
though Europe is currently experiencing a crisis, "the solution now as then is
not for the countries to act on their own at the expense of others."

Barroso and Jagland obviously don't speak for every European, but they do
represent the dominant worldview of the European elite. And a worldview that
believes "The system of sovereign nation-states has failed" clearly has no use
for a country that defiantly proclaims itself a Jewish nation-state and insists
on pursuing vital interests–like protecting its citizens from rocket fire–even
"at the expense of" the Palestinians who are launching the rockets. Nor,
incidentally, does this worldview have much use for an America that similarly
insists on preserving its sovereignty and refuses to sacrifices its interests to
the global collective's whims. The Barroso-Jagland worldview thus goes a long
way toward explaining European hostility to both Israel and America.

Nor does the growing popularity of European separatist movements contradict this
worldview. Even in Scotland and Catalonia, where pro-independence parties
recently won clear majorities, most voters' support for "independence" is
conditional on their new country receiving automatic EU membership. In other
words, they want "independence" only on condition that they not actually have to
exist for even a day as a fully independent country. The unavoidable conclusion
is that even among ordinary Europeans, this worldview remains alive and well.

Hence for the foreseeable future, understanding it will remain vital for
understanding Europe. To that end, I recommend two important essays published by
Yoram Hazony in 2010. The first, drawing on Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, explains the paradigm shift that created this worldview
and its implications for Israel. The second uses Immanuel Kant's philosophy to
explain why this view doesn't contradict Europe's ardent support for, say, a
Palestinian nation-state (here's the two-sentence, vastly dumbed-down version:
European post-nationalists view the nation-state as a stage primitive peoples
must go through en route to enlightened supra-nationalism, so for tribal Arab
societies, becoming nation-states would be a step forward. But it's
unconscionable for Israel, having achieved this stage, to want to stay there
instead of moving on to the next).

The bottom line, however, is clear: Israel's survival as a Jewish state depends
on its very willingness to reject "the new West's values." And European
antipathy is the unavoidable price it will have to pay for that choice.

No comments: