Challenge Part 3 20260729

The Challenge of October 7: Part 3 – Security and Foreign Policy

Towards a Definition of Israel's National Interests

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 24th of July via The Angry Demagogue.

Ever since the end of the first Lebanon War, Israeli military strategy has moved from active and aggressive defense of the homeland and its citizens via a policy of taking the fight to enemy territory to passive defense based on the threat of massive force – in other words, deterrence. The object was to create a situation where the enemy feared attacking us and to use our military force as a reason to go to the negotiating table. The assumption was that if we were strong enough, we could make concessions and deal with whatever situation arose. “The IDF is strong enough to deal with it” was the phrase de jour. Israel was at peace with Egypt and Syria’s Hafez Assad had no interest in a frontal attack after his air force was embarrassed in 1982 by losing over 60 aircraft in dogfights with Israel as well as 29 of their 30 SAM anti-aircraft batteries.

The PLO moved to Tunisia after the Lebanon War and other enemies, Iraq and Iran, were too far to be a non-terrorist threat. After Begin destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program, “only” terrorism seemed to be a threat. Terrorism though, to the Israeli leadership did not pose a “existential” threat to Israel, as Yitzchak Rabin was quick to repeat after Oslo, so deterrence seemed like a good military strategy for existential threats.

The Challenge of October 7: Part 3 – Security and Foreign Policy

On the diplomatic front, the Oslo accords of 1993 brought a thaw to the loneliness of the diplomats, but the diplomatic goals were still the same – get countries to like us by providing assistance where we can and by explaining how we are trying to come to a peace agreement with the Palestinians – and anyway, they are worse than we are. In diplomacy, like in the military realm, deterrence was the tool and the goal was quiet. In both realms of foreign policy reacting to the situation was the main tactic as both the generals and diplomats guiding principle to move the country forward was “quiet and prosperity will eventually lead to peace”. The political class might have disagreed amongst themselves with the details, but both the right and the left were sure that actively seeking out victory in foreign policy was not in the cards.

On the military side, the assumption was that the Israeli Air Force could deter any major attack while “minor” terrorist attacks and occasional localized rocket attacks did not threaten the existence of the country. Diplomatically, there were goals like having the U.S and other countries move their embassy to Jerusalem or moderating the inevitable anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and its agencies, but they did not seem to feel that the country had much to offer to the world around them or that Israel had any diplomatic heft so that was the sum of foreign policy.

The diplomats and politicians were circling the world with the thought that the more we meet people the less they will hate us. The politicians and diplomats forgot Lord Palmerston’s notion that countries “have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” The military leaders lost interest in protecting the people, forgetting that in a democratic country individuals count even if the end of their individual lives are not “existential” to the country.

What has October 7th taught us and how do we move forward in our international and security affairs? We will go back to the main theme again and that is the “Jewish people and Israeli persons (Israeli, because there are non-Jewish citizens who need the protection and care of Israel’s security and foreign policies). The main discussion has been about the defense concept, the “conceptzia” in Anglicized Hebrew, where one could deter one’s enemies with a combination of walls, destruction of buildings and providing them with a “good life”. Protecting the people seemed to be secondary as the entire south spent weeks nearly every year in their safe rooms and shelters. Even in the year after October 7, the northern towns were sitting ducks to Hezbollah fire with no attempt to take the fight to their territory. The idea that in a democratic country the military strategy was to allow one’s citizens to be shot at by a foreign power on a regular basis is a strategy that cares about ideas and concepts of peace and land but not about the lives of one’s citizens.

Even in the north, where most of the pre-October 7 military planning occurred, there was an understanding that Hezbollah would be able to conquer some border communities – but that they would eventually be pushed back. Besides the defeatist attitude of the generals, it amazes that these same military minds could not imagine what would happen to these communities under the occupation of Hezbollah – and the politicians that approved these plans did not understand the psychological harm to its own citizens of allowing the enemy conquer its towns and the euphoria that would occur in Arab and Moslem lands who want to destroy Israel.

But we are not here to go through the failures but rather move forward with the reality that October 7 has presented us. Simcha Goldin, who fought for 12 years for the return of his son from the hands of Hamas, spoke during that time (and still does) about a return to values. This goes to the heart of where we need military doctrine to go. A value-full doctrine starts with the value of the lives of a country’s along with victory over one’s enemies. What a military doctrine post-October 7 cannot say is that we will allow our towns to be occupied and we will allow homes to be damaged by rockets or drones or anti-tank rockets, that we will allow our citizens and soldiers to be shot at so long as the “quiet” can last for a few months or even years.

Pre-October 7 deterrence meant that both sides were deterred, post-October7 deterrence can only mean that Israel deters its enemies by taking the military initiative and not only reacting. The value of the safety and comfort of all citizens needs to be at the center of Israel’s military doctrine. Victory over enemies is the only thing that can ensure that, as we know now (but should have known then).

As for Israel’s vital interests, one must be the fate of Jews around the world. That has military and diplomatic angles. Antisemitism cannot be tolerated in “allied” countries and both the Mossad and the foreign ministry must be activated to fight it. While it might not be acceptable for one to operate a spy network in an “allied” country, once antisemitism becomes rampant and Jews lives and livelihoods are at stake, a military response is warranted. That is not to mean tanks and jets and drones, but Mossad operations that put fear into antisemites need be planned and activated.

Diplomatically, simple protests by the foreign ministry will not suffice. The government must make it known, via whatever non-military power it has, that antisemitism is not acceptable. If that means recalling ambassadors or making certain diplomats persona non-grata or if that means creating a real diplomatic crisis, so be it. Antisemitism of the type formed after October 7 needs to be fought as terrorism is – on multiple fronts.

Regarding foreign policy in general, Israel has never established, even informally, its “vital national interests”. The post-October 7 world is forcing Israel to do what it ignored for the last 80 years.

Here is a modest proposal of key points of Israel’s national interests. Obviously these need to be fleshed out (maybe in a future piece) and certainly these points themselves can be debated. The problem is – Israel has never had this debate. Here is a start:

– Free movement of Israel’s people and goods throughout the world.

– Support and defense of diaspora Jewish communities wherever they are.

– Support and defense of non-Israeli communities of Israel’s minority groups – for example, Druze, Bahai, Circassian.

– Unrelenting and unapologetic defense of the country’s borders, citizens and infrastructure.

– Defense of its Jewish and democratic traditions, freedoms and values.

– Unrelenting fight against terrorism against Israeli citizens, diaspora Jews and allied countries.

– Establishment of alliances that support Israel’s national interests.

– Self-reliance on matters of national importance such as the defense industry, food and energy production.

The above points are just that – broad points. There is no expectation and there should be no expectation that everyone should agree on the details. For example, “defense of borders” might mean different things to different people, but the argument should only be on what those borders are and not on if Israel ought to vigorously defend its borders. So too, with the “Jewish and democratic traditions” and each point above. But disagreement on the details of the main points is different than disagreement on the outline of Israel’s national interests.

As we have stated, Israel’s security and foreign policies have mostly been reactive over the past few decades. We can blame the right or the left and anyone we don’t agree with, but the main problem has been a lack of understanding by the country’s decision makers of Israel’s national interests. Once Israel understands what that is, it can act pro-actively to further its own interests and not only to react against localized or even globalized threats to the country and its well-being.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Share:
Challenge Part 2 20260723

The Challenge of October 7: Part 2 – The Intellectual Challenge

Stepping Away from Spinoza, Marx, Tolstoy, Post-Modernism and Current Religious Ideas

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 22nd of July via The Angry Demagogue.

In many ways Israel can be reduced to two things – the Middle Eastern shuk and the Eastern European shtetl. Day to day life in Israel resembles the chaotic, loud, richness and poverty of these two institutions. The shuk, the town market where people go to buy foodstuffs and other daily items still exists in most cities and towns in Israel. The two most famous, Jerusalem’s Machane Yehuda and Tel-Aviv’s Shuk Hacarmel still have their original look and feel (and smell) but have also been gentrified to include pubs and cafes. While modernity does not permit the shtetl to exist in spite of obvious similarities in some fundamentalist communities, it exists in the thoughts and actions of many of the descendants of the old shtetl.

The Challenge of October 7: Part 2 – The Intellectual Challenge

However, there is a philosophical backbone to Israel which started as a semi-socialist country with a vibrant agricultural sector and a European-German intellectual core that includes historical, scientific and cultural departments of the strictest standards. Jerusalem’s Hebrew University and Haifa’s Technion were both modelled on the German university and the other universities that have been established since then were formed on the same model.

There were exciting new subjects being pioneered, notably Gershom Scholem and Jewish mysticism and there was dialogue between many of the rabbis and these intellectuals, many of whom were trained in traditional yeshivot even if they no longer practiced halakhic Judaism. Gershom Scholem was in conversation with Chief Rabbi Avraham Kook (a person he called one of the few true contemporary kabbalists) and others. Shai Agnon, later a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature was a leading voice whose modernist fiction straddled both worlds.

But intellectual life was not found only in Jerusalem’s university and yeshivot – it was spread throughout the country in the new kibbutzim and towns that sprung up over the decades. Many of the pioneers – halutzim – were learned men and women in their own right and the first Kibbutz, Dagania, had its share. One was A.D. Gordon, a Tolstoyan thinker who wanted to turn the country into an agricultural idyll. Another resident of that first kibbutz, a wonderful poet known simply as Rachel the Poetess (Rachel Bluwstein), was a believer of the school of thought that, like Gordon, thought physical labor as liberating to the soul.

But as more kibbutzim were established to the softer Tolstoyan socialism of Gordon was added the harder scientific brand of Marx and Engels and the economic; social and pioneering success of these early kibbutzim along with their ability to “produce” great soldiers led to the acceptance of Marxism as the godfather of many of these socialist communities as well as the Histadrut trade union. Both the Tolstoyan and Marxist ways lasted well into the end of the 20th century. In the 21st century there is still a “romantic” view of Tolstoyan rural life and a neutral or often positive view of Marxist socialism.

The other major influence was that of Spinoza – the renegade Jewish philosopher who was excommunicated by the Amsterdam Jewish community but went on to be, arguably the most influential philosopher of his times. His radical rationalistic view of the world extended not only to his original Biblical analysis but also to the most complex of emotions such as love – in his greatest work, The Ethics. We see Spinoza’s influence in the universities today as an attempt to assume the irrationality of anything not scientifically proven (except that which supports their ideology as in Yuval Hararri’s foolhardy bestsellers). Spinoza is seen as a model of the rebel, honest, heretical Jew and his life is seen, ironically, as saintly in the academic world. It would be safe to say that his influence extends to the religious world too, as a bogeyman against whose heresies one must fight.

Although post-modernism is supposed to be the ultimate challenge to rationalists like Spinoza they are in fact, his grandchildren here in Israel as they take his critical abilities to challenge any and all truths as simple narratives to be adapted, or not. Even the Jewish fundamentalist world has succumbed to the post-modern narrative as they reject the very concept of historical truth and accept only their own fundamentalist narrative of history, as currently believed. As a narrative they have no problem changing it to match whatever is their political need – at the moment.

Something similar has happened in the religious-Zionist camp where the rabbis and academics have accepted this envelope that surrounds intellectual debate. The Tolstoyan idyll is combined with the tought of Rabbi Abraham Kook in many of the new farms that are being established to this day. While Marx himself is not accepted, the socialist dream of equality is often the basis of the economic “thought” of these rabbis.

Even in the arts, leading writers are more political than literary, art is seen to need to “challenge” and not beautify and architecture is more brutalist than anything else.

October 7 has changed all of this in Israel even if the intellectual, political and cultural classes have not yet caught on. Faith in the old guard across the board has been eroded as the intellectual infrastructure that the country counted on failed completely. Not only was it not able to deal with the pointed failures of October 7th but it encouraged the value-less ideas that led up to that failure. In the post October 7th world there were almost no intellectual, religious or artistic responses that tried to deal with these failures but, like the politicians and generals (which we will get to later in another piece), they looked back to justify their own mistaken views and prophecies. There have been attempts to deal with them of course, but they all lapse back into old, tired arguments.

The Israeli intellectual classes have not even been able to think through the rabid antisemitism that has enveloped their own world except to return to the same old cliches and complaints which usually blame their political opponents. This has been true across ideological and religious camps.

There have been exceptions of course. Two rabbis come to mind – Rabbis Ya’akov Madan and Tamir Granot – the latter who lost his son in battle and the former whose son lost both legs, also in in the war. They have challenged the fundamentalists in the religious camp, the secularists of the left and the right and their own religious-Zionist colleagues in an attempt to come to terms with what happened three years ago.

If there were three main secular thinkers, on the religious side we can look to three 20th century rabbis and one who was still active in the 21st century who have dominated the religious thought of the country – Rabbis Avraham KookJoseph Soloveitchik and Avraham Karelitz, also known as the Chazon Ish as well as Rabbi Ovadia Yoesf, who, arguably changed the religious and political life of the country through his authority and charisma in the Israeli Sephardi (Jews from Arab lands) community. Jewish tradition by its nature allows great flexibility in re-interpreting past statements to fit the times so there is hope that new and bold ideas can be teased out of these great thinkers.

There need to be better intellectual models than Marx and Spinoza and while Tolstoy was the artist par-excellence his philosophy of history in “War and Peace” and essays leaves much to be desired. Marx of course should be persona non grata for all freedom loving peoples, especially Jews. Spinoza was a revolutionary thinker but one who, despite the “Theologico-Political Treatise” has nothing new to say in the post-October 7 world. As for the Rabbis mentioned earlier, the current dominant interpretations will need to be overcome in order to breathe fresh air into these communities.

To us it seems that the vast majority of people in Israel are ready to move on from the current idols but the question remains will the universities, filled with thinkers who are afraid to face up to their own failures and afraid of losing their international status, find enough bold people to create a new intellectual framework to help the country move forward or will they be left behind and made to be irrelevant to those they are meant to teach and serve? Will the Rabbis, also cloistered in their own four walls be able to look past their previous modern dogmas to forge a way out of the ethical and religious morass formed by the disaster of October 7?

What does the country need intellectually and theologically to move forward? If the old thinkers needed to come to terms with the end of exile and then a post-Holocaust world, today’s thinkers need to help us face the main challenges of the post October 7, morally, spiritually and intellectually. Settling the land is still important but that in an of itself does not protect us. Learning Torah will help us and according to some, will help defend us but it also allows us to run away from the reality that is around us. Studying the great books, creating new narratives not found in history or reason or depending only on our reason did not stop the profound reintroduction of antisemitism in the academy and around the world.

In short – October 7 challenges not only our peace of mind and way of life, it challenges the very foundations of our intellectual and religious lives that were shattered that Shabbat and Simchat Torah morning. Each and every one of us can find the errors of those we never agreed with, but only a bold and creative thinker can re-examine his or her old, mistaken ways.

However, we need to understand where to start on the intellectual and theological journey and there is one thing that needs to be the center of our post-October 7 philosophical, ideational and theological quest. That one thing is the centrality of the “people of Israel”. Tradition calls it “clal Yisrael” and we need to understand that that must be a focus of our thought. All countries and all peoples have a natural sympathy for the pain of their fellow countrymen, or ethnicities but for the Jewish people, so small and so at risk of destruction in every generation that pain always feels existential.

This is a theme that will follow us in our following essays, but it is something that can unite the various thinkers. This is not a call for unity of ideas or a false political unity, but rather that the thoughts and ideas that come from each thinker needs to focus on the betterment of Jews as individuals and Jews as a people and not on the sectors they strive to represent. Maybe the sectorial thinking was necessary to build the country into what it was (or maybe not) but it is clear that the post October 7 Jewish world has changed and brought challenges that need to look beyond the factions that are at the center of the contemporary Israeli and Jewish life.

We claim now that no single Jewish thinker or group has the good of “clal Yisrael” in mind when they plan their future thoughts and actions. This is as true of the Reform movement as it is of Chabad. It is as true of the American Hasidic and non-Hasidic fundamentalist worlds as it is of the modern Orthodox. In Israel it is as true of the religious Zionist world as it is of the Israeli fundamentalist-Haredi as it is of the secular intellectual world.

What is required is an honest, creative and bold assessment by thinkers in all streams. That is not to say they all must agree on the solutions, but the cynical claim to speak for the Jewish people while really pushing for the success of their own group needs to end.

In the diaspora the explosion of antisemitism needs a solution focused on the Jewish people without the excuses we give to the antisemites for being antisemitic – this or that policy, this or that religious commitment. Bret Stephens opened up a new dialogue on antisemitism and that is a start – but it must go much further and much deeper. We too have proposed a modest way of dealing with this evil – but that too is just a start.

We await the honestly, creativity and boldness necessary to bring the country, the Jewish people and the world into the post-October 7th world. We say the world, because the antisemitic reaction to October 7th is not only a threat to the Jewish world, but also a threat to the free world. The intellectual climate in Israel is not conducive to solving the post-October 7th country as it has become politicized beyond recognition. A de-politicization of all intellectual and theological streams and a concentration on “clal Israel” is the only way out of the mess they, we, have all created.

It is not just the generals and the politicians that failed, but the Rabbis, Professors, writers and artists that have failed along with them.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Challenge Part 1 20260721

The Challenge of October 7: Part 1 – Introduction

Cynicism and Wake Up Calls: World War I, Vietnam, October 7th

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 20th of July via The Angry Demagogue.

Europe and the UK had WWI, the United States had Vietnam. Israel had the birth of the post-Zionist left in the wake up call that was the Yom Kippur War, and now (learning that the wake up call did not last) the events of October 7 have demanded that the country face new challenges – intellectually, politically and socially.

The Challenge of October 7: Part 1 – Introduction

World War I and Vietnam gave birth to the cynicism and inferiority complex to Europe and the United States respectively that has reached its nadir in the contemporary West. The utter lack of self-confidence in the traditions, virtues and ideas that moved the West forward from ancient Athens and Jerusalem to the Middle Ages to the enlightenment and on to the computer age. As technology moved forward, the ideas that underpinned it retreated to a nihilistic denial of the monotheistic idea that is the basis of all Western life.

Today’s engineers, physicists, humanists and social scientists miss the historical arc that moves from Plato and Aristotle’s break from paganism and the Jewish intellectual monotheistic heritage from late Biblical and post-Biblical times through the Church Fathers and the medieval Jewish, Christian and Moslem thinkers to our current times. The bits and bytes of the computer age didn’t just happen to be created in this cultural milieu. That is not to say that the monotheistic religions over the past 2,500 years have not held back important thinkers, caused wars and acted (shall we say, pagan-like?) over this time. They have. Each of the monotheistic religions have something to atone for, as do great Eastern religions – Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism in their various forms. And no one can deny that in addition to freedom and scientific advances, the Western tradition also created evils such as fascism, Nazism and communism.

Racism, slavery and misogyny existed throughout history in all cultures and while it was the Judeo-Christian tradition that finally ended at least the “acceptance” of these practices, they seem to rear their ugly heads again and again. We see that in the rebound of antisemitism in polite society.

The fundamentalists of all religions and ideologies unable to live with the belief that what they hold dear can be challenged and therefore we have before us various post-modern narratives instead of historical honesty. In my own religion, the fundamentalists go so far as to deny that a great rabbi ever visited a Jewish library and read the stories of a non-religious Jewish writer. The hagiography and insistence that “the greats” never sinned is part and parcel of the fundamentalist narrative and is due at least as much to the same loss of self-confidence that the secular world has endured as it is to blind belief. On the other side, we have “great” historians who create theories that belittle ancient truths with as much scientific proof as the ancient traditions themselves.

In Israel, as we stated before, the Yom Kippur War was the shock that told the elites that maybe they were mistaken in their Zionism and that a new post-Zionist, post-nationalist, European style country is what should replace the pioneering, self-sacrificing, idealistic country that had been built. They looked at Western Europe and saw a peaceful, prosperous continent and wanted to copy it. What they ignored of course was the beginnings of a demographic crisis, the total dependence for their defense on the United States, and most importantly a loss of creativity and energy that comes with the cynicism and exhaustion of a continent that went through two world wars and was free only because outside powers fought their occupiers and tormentors. Half the continent was still under occupation of course in 1945, but that did not affect the post-Zionist worship of the free half then under the nihilistic force of post-modernism.

After the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli establishment and not only the establishment was ready to move on from the Zionism and Judaism that formed the basis of the Jewish and democratic state in order to move it from its pariah-hood in its own neighborhood. The lure of peace and stability and the hope of a comfortable future was put in the hands of those who felt it was Israeli pride and self-respect that was the reason why the country could not live in peace with its neighbors. Shimon Peres, the tactician, par excellence, who was more responsible for building up the IDF than any other single person, decided to turn into a strategist and went so far as to oppose the study of history in schools. Only forward-looking people need apply.

October 7 has brought the country to another crisis of confidence, but the consensus that is being established is neither a return to the post-Six Day War euphoria nor the post Yom Kippur War depression. Over the coming few days we will examine the intellectual, political, military, diplomatic, cultural, social and economic changes that the post-October 7 country is forcing on the old leadership of both the left and right, the religious, fundamentalist and secular. The current election battle is being fought along the old lines, but the country is moving away from them. It could be that the change will come in this October election, but it may take more time until the leadership is changed and the discussion moves from the old battle lines to new, unknown disagreements.

Over the next few days, we will examine the changes that need to happen in order for Israel to deal with the trauma and, dare we say, opportunities that the failure of October 7 has brought.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

postR174

The Oldest Hate: Why The Hague Needs to Convict Israel

The Oldest Hate: Why The Hague Needs to Convict Israel

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 14th of June via The Angry Demagogue.

The oldest hate is also the most frustrating hate – why is there antisemitism and why does it never end?  All the reasons to hate the Jews have been refuted by Jewish actions. We are filthy capitalists and then communists. We are separatists and then assimilationists. We are stateless and we have a state. The list goes on and on and we can come to the conclusion that there is no answer.

The late Lutheran Pastor turned Catholic Priest, Richard John Neuhaus said years ago – I paraphrase as I don’t remember the exact quite – if you don’t like Christian America, just wait until you get post-Christian America. No one can doubt that for centuries Christianity was the source of antisemitism in the European continent as Jews were the easy scapegoats to everything from the Plague to economic crashes. But with the dawn of the scientific age, Christian antisemitism lost its cache along with Christianity itself. What we are dealing with now is an antisemitism of the nihilists.

The nihilists are those anti-semites who, like the operettist Wagner and the philosophers Karl Marx and Voltaire started a trend that reached it climax with Nazi and Stalinist totalitarianism and has now made a comeback with a combination of Islamist and progressive ideologies which are all based on the glorification of violence and cruelty that we see in ISIS, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Qaeda and now manifesting itself in America’s great cities and universities. The question still remains – why do all of these seemingly contradictory ideas all converge in anti-semitism?  

The answer, it seems to me lies in exactly that one international body that was created in the wake of the actions of greatest and most horrible of anti-semitic regimes – the Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. The Western world – the modern Christian west, led by the United States, felt it needed laws of war and international bodies that would continue the work of the Nuremberg Trials and make sure all those who would perpetrate genocide would, eventually, be brought to justice. That these bodies have failed miserably is proven by the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, the mass murders going on in Sudan and other parts of Africa, the genocide, still ongoing of Sunni Muslims in Syria and the Chinese incarceration in concentration camps (and who knows what else?) of the Uyghurs. 

So why Israel? Why is Israel, why are the Jews the main enemies of the new nihilists?

The enemy is the moral code that the Bible brought into the world – a code that protected slaves from cruel behavior, a code that did not allow the rape of women captured in war, a code that limited the number of horses and wives a king could have, a code with laws of war. Maimonides, writing in the middle ages in Spain and then Egypt, has a whole section of his Code on the laws of kings and war.  Jews didn’t always follow the law and the books of Joshua and Judges are filled with difficult passages but the commandments were there, nonetheless.

Hugo Grotius, writing in the 16th and 17th century developed Just War theory based on Christian thinking and that has formed the basis of the international laws of warfare ever since. This certainly would not have happened without the Bible and the codes that followed it and this is what the nihilists hate most of all.  

Israel is at the heart of the progressive Western, radical Islamic, pan-Slavic and Communist revolt against the containment of violence, cruelty and bloodlust under the rubric of a higher moral law. Maybe it is true that man’s natural state is war, as Hobbes believed.  Maybe Heraclitus is right that “war is the father of us all and our king” and maybe as he continued, it “discloses who is godlike and who is but a man” but the Judeo-Christian tradition taught us that we need to overcome this nature and to live with a moral code that can overcome it and change what it means to be “godlike”.   

The “court” in the Hague represents that pagan and nihilistic outlook on life and the desire to return to a time where violence and cruelty is unregulated, where war can be fought without the rules that the Jews foisted onto mankind. Camille Paglia writes in her magnum oppose “Sexual Personae” that society is the “defense against nature’s power”. Without society and the moral and behavioral codes that make it up, Paglia writes, we would be” storm-tossed on the barbarous sea that is nature”.

Convicting Israel of violating the very laws it itself created will finally put an end to the “farce that is morality” according to the nihilists and return us to that “barbarous sea that is nature”. The destruction of Israel will allow the world to finally defeat that 3,000 year old code that we call the Judeo-Christian heritage that prohibits the nihilists from living as they wish. The Hague needs to convict Israel and the woke left along with radical Islam need to finish the job on the battlefield so that they can return to their beloved state of nature.

They hate the Jews now because we have provided them with the framework to be civilized and they hate civilization most of all.  

Israel will be convicted in the Hague because to find it innocent means the nihilists will be shackled to a morality that prevents them from cruelly murdering, raping and destroying as they please. It means that Hollywood will not be able to continue glorifying the dismemberment of children in their “realistic” crime dramas. It means the universities will have to teach of truth and beauty and not perpetuate the bloody ideologies it loves. It means that they will have to subordinate their beloved blood thirsty ideologies to that horrible bourgeois virtue, human kindness.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/