To understand U.S. politics of today, particularly of “Conservatives/Republicans,” and especially of the Trump/DeSantis “New Right” faction of the foregoing, the so-called “Right-wing Peaceniks,” essential as they are as “ideological infrastructure” to Israel’s Likud/Extreme-Right (Fascist) elements, as seen in their unqualified, limitless support for the Israeli fascist’s war on the Palestinians, it’s helpful to look at the “Origins” of their ideology in it’s most recent manifestation, as “National Conservatives.” As the review of Hazony’s book in the article at bottom helps fill on in on. One might say US “NatCons” are “unwitting dupes” of Hazony’s fascist “influence operation,” or perhaps more harshly; “useful idiots,” for Hazony and Israel’s Fascist Settlers. But they’re not, as I’ve been sharing information on this email list of this "Movement” for at least 5 years now, and of how in league they were with Steve Bannon, Charles Koch, the Mercers, Trump, Netanyahu, and the late Sheldon Adelson before he died, as co-conspirators in an all-out war against what was left of the US Constitution, and in support of Trump’s election to “accomplish” what he did for Netanyahu, and to the Palestinians. That Biden has continued so much of that in no way changes that it was Trump who put it in motion, taking that zealous "Israeli Fascism First” far beyond anything the proverbial “NeoCons” ever did!
That “war” against the Constitution was begun by the original “Traditional Conservative Movement” of the 1950s, behind the anti-constitutional writings of political theorist Willmoore Kendall. With that anti-Enlightenment ideology taken from Carl Schmitt’s and transported into the 21st Century, by Trump-supporting Traditional Conservatives. And by Yoram Hazony, in his anti-Enlightenment screeds like the book reviewed at the bottom here, and in “Conservatism: A Rediscovery,” as Hazony’s in representing the Edmund Burke Foundation. A fact which surely has the liberal (for his times), Enlightenment influenced, Edmund Burke, spinning in his grave!
But as the 2024 POTUS election is in full-swing, with so many people here who are ostensibly opposed to our wars, yet aiding and abetting the election of Trumpites in “campaigning for Trump by omission.” That is, in denouncing “Biden’s Wars,” while omitting all that Trump did to add to our wars in conspiring with Netanyahu for aggressive war against the Palestinians and Iran, and for US war against China and, yes, Russia, as Trump boasts of. As here, in a rare occasion of telling the truth: So here’s a little more on how Trump was elected to set in motion “wars” he never gets proper attribution for starting:
BLUF: "Despite initially harboring qualms about President Trump’s leadership, the Adelsons have found much to like in a Republican-controlled government that has aligned with their most cherished priorities: unflinchingly pro-Israel, unaccommodating to Middle Eastern adversaries and dedicated to deregulation and lower taxes. "Mr. Adelson in particular enjoys a direct line to the president. In private in-person meetings and phone conversations, which occur between the two men about once a month, he has used his access to push the president to move the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and, more recently, cut aid to the Palestinians, according to people familiar with their discussions, who spoke anonymously to discuss private matters. Mr. Trump has done both, triggering a backlash from some American allies. "Republican control of the House and the Senate is so vital to maintaining these policies, the Adelsons believe, that they have given $55 million in the last few months to groups dedicated to making sure it stays that way. . . . "But after Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, Dr. Adelson was crying tears of joy. “I can’t believe it!” she exclaimed, according to one person who witnessed the exchange, hugging Mr. Trump in a meeting in January 2017 at Trump Tower in which the president-elect promised he would move the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. . . . “And he said, ‘Mort! I just came out of Trump Tower and Donald Trump just promised me in his first term he’s going to move the embassy to Jerusalem,’” Mr. Klein recalled. "The plan favored by some senior aides at the time, including Stephen K. Bannon, a key strategist for Mr. Trump, was to announce the embassy move on Inauguration Day, people familiar with the discussions said. Mr. Trump’s staff went so far as to look up the time the sun would go down that day — a Friday, the start of the Jewish Sabbath — so they could plan appropriately to have Jewish leaders like Mr. Adelson there for the announcement."
Someone asked me the other day for “proof” that Charles Koch had a role in propagating and supporting Hazony’s "National Conservative Movement;” which in recognizing Trump as its figurehead, as The American Conservative magazine exults, can be seen by Koch’s outsized role in getting him elected in 2016. That Koch may now have soured on Trump a bit doesn’t change that, but is only more proof that Koch stands with the NatCons, if DeSantis is who he ultimately supports, as DeSantis is even more openly with Hazony’s fascist National Conservative Movement, and the Israeli Fascist Settlers it represents, than is Trump:
So “Right-wing Peacenik,” like hell! "In a speech laying out his approach, Mr. DeSantis cast Beijing as a greater threat to the United States than the Axis powers and the Soviet Union ever were because of its economic might. As commander in chief, he said, he would “prioritize the Indo-Pacific region as the most pressing part of the world for defending U.S. interests and U.S. security.” "A less aggressive approach, he argued, would allow China to export its “authoritarian vision all across the world,” creating a “global dystopia.”
"Among the assembled allies, well-wishers and supplicants who put in appearances was Tim Phillips, the head of Americans for Prosperity, the political centerpiece of the sprawling fundraising and advocacy network spearheaded by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. It was the second consecutive year, according to an RJC donor, that Phillips dropped by for at least part of the conference, which doubles as the site of the so-called Adelson primary -- the increasingly high-stakes battle between GOP presidential candidates vying to win the billionaire’s favor by expressing their full-throated support for Israel. Phillips’ foray into RJC turf was emblematic of a growing and successful effort by the Koch network to tap into Adelson’s $28 billion net worth and forge new links with the casino owner and the RJC, of which Adelson has long been the lead bankroller." . . . "Adelson and Kochworld have also forged closer ties between key staff members and appear to share a willingness to lay out cash for the best and most sophisticated voter data operations and for grass-roots mobilization. That increased coordination could have big implications for the 2016 congressional elections -- and could have bearing on who will occupy the Oval Office come January 2017. (As its did!) . . . "As Adelson’s Koch network donations have become a larger part of his political spending, other ties -- which the casino owner likes to foster among the groups he backs, in order to maximize the political returns -- have developed. One example: Phillips’ Vegas visits came after Freedom Partners, which serves as a central financing hub for about two dozen Koch-supported groups, gave $700,000 to the Adelson-backed RJC, according to IRS reports. Marc Short, the president of Freedom Partners, was also in Las Vegas at the time of the RJC bash, according to a conservative source, as was Adam Stryker, a former Nevada-based lobbyist for Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. who in just a few years has risen fast in the AFP hierarchy. "Some Koch donors see ample reason for top Koch operatives to woo the RJC’s wealthy donor base, a community that includes several hedge fund and real estate CEOs. “I think AFP sees the value of reaching out to conservative Jews given Obama’s attitude towards Israel and Netanyahu,” said one Koch donor, referring to conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a close political ally and personal friend of Adelson."
So here is a quote from below of Hazony’s "Zionist counterattack,” on those non-fascist, or at least “less” fascist, Israelis, he so despises:
"His is one of the first expressions of the Zionist counterattack. As post-Zionists return to and rewrite the past to undermine the idea of the Jewish nation, its defenders must also look to the past and reexamine the world of Zionist and anti-Zionist ideas, both to understand the attack and to respond to it.
"Hazony's main premise—that ideas shape political realities—is intellectually refreshing in an age characterized by the notion that power and interests alone move politics. It implies that in order to understand politics one must investigate the ideas and beliefs of individuals who constitute the elite. This premise is particularly true vis-à-vis the Zionist movement, which, armed only with a powerful idea, was able to create the new state of Israel."
And that point is the only thing I agree with Hazony on, "that ideas shape political realities.” But given the knowledge required to enter the realm of “serious” political ideas, like seeing in some ideas their fascist origins, its impossible for most people to see the “Second Coming of Fascism,” when it is taking full shape. Just as it wasn’t seen in 1920s Italy and Germany.
https://www.meforum.org/64/the-jewish-state-the-struggle-for-israels-soul
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
The Zionist Counterattack
Yoram Hazony, president of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, has written one of the first serious attempts to describe and battle post-Zionism - the trend that in recent years has become so important a part of Israel's cultural and intellectual life.
Post-Zionism is not easy to define, but it is a set of beliefs held by some Israelis who attack Zionism as an inherently immoral project, one that throughout the twentieth century led to unjust acts toward the Arab and Jewish inhabitants of today's Israel. A particular form of post-Zionism, which Hazony calls post-Judaism, portrays Judaism as a teaching of universal humanism which can only be sullied through a particular national and political _expression_.
Hazony's book argues that post-Zionism is on the rise in Israel. Israelis, "an exhausted people, confused and without direction," (p. xvii) are now actively engaged in the destruction of their own national spirit. Hazony finds that expressions of post-Zionist and post-Jewish ideas can be found today in most walks of Israeli life, including the military, media, art, literature, academia, and more. As these ideas spread, they pose a real danger to "everything [Theodor] Herzl and the other leading Zionists sought to achieve." (p. xxvii). In other words, if post-Zionism spreads, Israel will at best stop being the "Jewish state," or at worst, cease to exist.
The great strength of Hazony's deeply researched and thought-provoking work lies in its alerting Israelis and Americans to the challenge of post-Zionism and the ideological threat this poses to the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state.. His is one of the first expressions of the Zionist counterattack. As post-Zionists return to and rewrite the past to undermine the idea of the Jewish nation, its defenders must also look to the past and reexamine the world of Zionist and anti-Zionist ideas, both to understand the attack and to respond to it.
Hazony's main premise—that ideas shape political realities—is intellectually refreshing in an age characterized by the notion that power and interests alone move politics. It implies that in order to understand politics one must investigate the ideas and beliefs of individuals who constitute the elite. This premise is particularly true vis-à-vis the Zionist movement, which, armed only with a powerful idea, was able to create the new state of Israel.
Hazony's central argument is that the current Jewish assault on Zionism is not a recent phenomenon; its roots go back to approximately the early 1900s, near the very beginning of the Zionist movement. He sees contemporary post-Zionists as the intellectual heirs of Martin Buber and a group of leading German-Jewish (and, to a lesser extent, American) intellectuals, including professors Hugo Bergman, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Joshua Prawer, Gershom Scholem, and Jacob Talmon. Many of them were members of Brit Shalom (Peace Association), a small but vocal political movement in pre-Israel Palestine that called for a bi-national Arab-Jewish state. They opposed Zionism from its outset because they believed that political power would necessarily corrupt the Jewish settlement and lead to injustice toward the Arab population.
Hazony offers a parsimonious and seemingly powerful explanation for post-Zionism. Buber and these other intellectuals, he points out, dominated the faculty of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem from its foundation in 1925. They infused their research and teaching with their anti-Zionist paradigm. Their students adopted these ideas and formed the next generation of Israel's educators and intellectuals, who in turn trained today's post-Zionists. In other words, today's post-Zionism comes from "the hub of a great intellectual contrivance" created by Buber and his associates who "succeeded in creating the course of over forty years."(p. 298).
But this explanation is too parsimonious. When (p. 79).the author writes that "One would not be far off the mark in saying that today's highly successful movement to do away with virtually everything that distinguishes Israel as a Jewish state is nothing more than Martin Buber's revenge for a wound inflicted on him by Theodor Herzl," he is reducing (p.xxix). one of Israel's most important intellectual trends to a personal spat between two personalities a hundred years ago. In addition, this contradicts Hazony's premise that ideas move politics.
Likewise too parsimonious is Hazony's implication that that there was one, and only one, Zionist leader after Herzl's death who was a man of ideas—David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel. Yes, Ben-Gurion was indeed a great Zionist leader, but he was not Israel's "only commanding advocate and theorist." (P. 334). In contrast, Hazony belittles that that other great Zionist leader, Chaim Weizmann, as just "an industrial chemist—which is to say that, to put it kindly, he was no great thinker." (p. 166) Indeed, Hazony dismisses all prime ministers since Ben-Gurion as "[not] idea makers of any significance." (p. 328). He regards as a Zionist tragedy the ending of Ben-Gurion's political career in the mid-1950s, leaving Israel barren of ideas and vulnerable to anti-Zionist intellectuals like Buber and his disciples. This reads Israeli history too narrowly.
Nor is this the only problem with The Jewish State. Second, Hazony hardly discusses to what extent, if any, post-nationalist thought in Israel had roots in other political developments, such as Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the moral dilemmas that resulted from it. Israel's 1967 victory and the fact that it came to rule another people caused many in Israel—particularly in the left-wing of the Zionist camp—to question the morality behind the actions of the Jewish state. Sometimes their criticisms crossed the line into what could be considered post-Zionism. Hazony ignores this as a factor contributing to the crisis of nationalism in Israel today. Indeed, his work largely disregards the influence of the nation's security dilemmas on its intellectuals and searches for the root-causes of post-Zionism almost exclusively in intellectual history.
Third, Hazony attributes the rise of post-Zionism wholly to intellectuals outside the Zionist camp and does not see any weakness within the socialist-Zionism of Israel's founding fathers that might have contributed to the growth of anti-nationalist sentiments. In fact, Labor Zionism contained anti-nationalist seeds that later developed into post-Zionism. It pointed away from, and tended to contradict, national attachments, instead preferring the international fraternity of all men, and even a potential withering away of the state.
Fourth, Hazony dismisses as uninteresting the intense disputes between the Zionist Left and its Right, both because in his view the differences were not great and because "neither movement believed much in the power of ideas." This view would also seem not to be compatible with the author's belief in the power of ideas; and, by applying this approach to intramural Zionist disputes in the 1920s and 1930s, he misses an important aspect of Zionism and a source of today's post-Zionism.
Fifth, Hazony does not clearly define post-Zionism, even though that is the central object of his inquiry. The reader is left to wonder whether the term refers to anti-nationalism, anti-Judaism, or more generally to the beliefs of the Israeli Left. Thus, the chapters that describe post-Zionism as a broad cultural trend discuss not only self-proclaimed post-Zionist writers, but also leading left-wing (though not necessarily post-Zionist) intellectuals, the justices of the Israeli Supreme Court, leading artists, and more. This approach leads Hazony to overlook or not address the schism developing on the Left between Zionists and post-Zionists. The former minister of education Amnon Rubinstein and the author Aharon Megged are just two vocal examples of leftist opponents of post-Zionism.
Despite these weaknesses, Hazony's book is a must-read for any student of Zionism and Israel. He is one of only a handful of writers (including Ephraim Karsh and Anita Shapira) who challenge the post-Zionists. He has also challenged those who would defend Zionism in the intellectual realm: Choose a part of this large problem and start writing, or we all may not have much of a Jewish state to write about.
Meyrav Wurmser, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, is the author of The Schools of Ba'athism--A Study of Syrian Schoolbooks (Middle East Media Research Institute, 2000).
|