Failed Zionism – Liberal Utopianism and the Abandonment of Israel
There seems to be a pervasive confusion about the difference between victim and aggressor, criminal and innocent, in the West and certainly in sectors where such confusion is both difficult to countenance and critically unfortunate.
Ignorance about Israel, Islam and jihad is a component of this ethical failure in our country to identify and support victims rather than the aggressor. This ignorance and confusion has catastrophic effects including our support and prosecution of two costly wars to prop up two Islamic states, Iraq and Afghanistan, whose foundational law, Islamic Sharia law, is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and our concepts of freedom, justice, and tolerance.
While the growing abandonment of Israel due to Leftist Utopian confusions and inverted concepts of right and wrong is unfortunate but understandable, the anti-Zionist position so common in the American Jewish community is particularly alarming and bizarre. A recent article in the New York Times Review of Books (June 10, 2010) by Mr. Peter Beinart is a case in point. Mr. Beinart’s convolutions, avoidance of context, moral and ethical inversions, and general confusion about the issues he purports to discuss demand a response.
In "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment", Mr. Beinart criticizes establishment American Jewish leadership for their lack of liberalism and for their firm support of the state of Israel. This is the crux of his criticism and, while it is ethically and factually upside down and suggests a more meretricious approach to liberalism than to the existence of the Jewish state itself, his argument is based on a misunderstanding of the issues at hand.
Continue reading at Family Security Matters.
Posted on 07/06/2010 8:10 AM by DL Adams
6 Jul 2010
I read the whole article at its original location. Then I read the comments that have appeared so far. Most instructive, in a frightening sort of way. The first comment, very long, purporting to be by one 'Nathan Tinter', was by someone who was either completely deluded, or else consciously trying to re-establish the edifice of nonsense and lies that Mr Adams had just destroyed. An exchange then followed between this person, and two or three other commenters - knowledgeable about Islam and jihad - challenging his nonsense. The nonsense-peddler persisted, ignoring or denying their points.