Prof. Paul Eidelberg
In 1917, the British government drafted the Balfour Declaration, which recognized that Palestine, on BOTH sides of the Jordan River, belongs exclusively to the Jewish people. The members of that government make those who belong to the Right in present day Israel appear as leftists, if only because the latter would be satisfied if Jews controlled—at most—only the left bank of the Jordan.
The Balfour Declaration was approved by America's devoutly religious President Woodrow Wilson, a man of the Right. And if this were not enough to sanctify Jewish possession of the Land of Israel, the 52 nations comprising the League of Nations unanimously acknowledged the rightness of the Balfour Declaration. Right was right; Left was wrong.
Significantly, the Balfour Declaration makes no mention of the Arabs then living in Palestine. It was universally acknowledged that ONLY the Jews had any just or legitimate claim to this land. This was the position of right honorable men.
Times have change. The nations, and even most Jews, are no longer right; they prefer to be wrong. Of course, such terms as "right" and "wrong" have been replaced by the spatial categories of "left" and "right." In this age of moral relativism, "left" and "right" have taken the place of the traditional distinction between “good” and “bad”. But given leftist dominance of the media and academia, the "right" is commonly associated with the "bad."
Notice how pundits would have us believe that the Nazi Party consisted of rightists. In truth, however, the Nazis called themselves the NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHE DEUTCHE ARBEITERPARTEI, the National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were leftists!
The candid observer will admit that Germany's National Socialist Party has certain things in common with Israel's socialist Labor Party, that is, with Israeli leftists. Let me offer a few examples, but with two cautionary remarks.
First, I do not regard members of the Labor Party as Nazis. Unlike the Nazis,
who were territorial expansionists, Israeli leftists (joined by “rightists”
such as prime minister Ariel Sharon) are committed to territorial self-denial.
Also, Labor is not about to put Jews into crematoria.
Nevertheless, consider the following similarities. Germany's National Socialist
Party called Jews "degenerates." Painful to say, but the late Yitzhak
Rabin of the Labor Party used that epithet to describe religious Jews who opposed
his Oslo policy.
Germany's National Socialist Party was led by atheists. Much the same may be
said of Israel's socialist Labor party. Germany's National Socialist Party practiced
the policy of JUDENREIN. Israel's socialist party would apply that policy to
Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
National Socialism involves state control of all the means of production--including
the production of ideas. Israel's socialist party has ever dominated Israel's
economy as well as the country's electronic and educational media.
Lest this be regarded as mud-slinging, consider certain statements of the late Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, whose mentality is widespread among Israeli leftists.
Leibowitz called Jewish soldiers "Judeo-Nazis." What underlies this vicious statement? The answer will be found in a September 11, 1981 interview published in the JERUSALEM POST. There Leibowitz declared that "The people [of Israel] have been corrupted by 14 years of patriotism, nationalism, chauvinism and expansion." Those 14 years go back to June 1967, when Israel, in a war of self-defense, gained control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
In his interview Leibowitz advocated "immediate, unilateral, unconditional withdrawal from the[se] territories." "Withdrawal from the territories," he claimed, "will have a tremendous psychological impact on Israel's Arabs. They won't, overnight, become loyal citizens. But it will help reconcile them to the state, I believe."
Leibowitz, a scientist, had no empirical evidence for this belief in 1981. But now, thanks to the withdrawal policy of Labor (as well as Likud) governments, it’s obvious Leibowitz was a fool. Much Jewish blood has been shed as a consequence of such left-wing folly.
Consider, however, his calling Jewish soldiers "Judeo-Nazis." There is a talmudic maxim that people frequently attribute to others their own vices. Was Leibowitz a Judeo-Nazi? Of course not! He was merely a shallow moral relativist, as indicated by his fatuous admission that his remaining a Jew was a matter of "personal preference." Given his relativism, and aside from personal inconvenience, he might just as well have become a Moslem or a Nazi.
The same may be said of Labor leader Shimon Peres who applied for Israeli membership in the Arab League. Also, Peres, referring to the Jewish settlements, has often said that he sees "nothing wrong with Jews living under Arab rule, just as Arabs live under Jewish rule"—as if the two modes of ruling were morally equivalent.
Returning, however, to the 1917 British government, President Woodrow Wilson, and the League of Nations, it seems they harbored a "Judeo-Nazi" attitude toward "Palestine," to use Leibowitz's mindless criteria. How else are we to explain their acknowledging that the Land of Israel--on both sides of the Jordan--belongs exclusively to the Jewish people? Of course, these were Gentiles; they belonged to the far right. Would that we had such rightists in the present government of Israel!