There are similarities between the syndrome of the lunacy of the Israeli Marxist Leftists 50 years ago, as exemplified by their attitude towards Josef Stalin and the USSR, and those of their ideological heirs these days, as exemplified by their attitude towards Arab terror in general and to the Metzer Kibbutz atrocity, in particular. These symptoms are an integral part of their distorted and anti-Jewish ideological system.



Consider these two eras - with the same Leftist syndromes, although the symptoms have changed.



Then:

Fact: Stalin's dictatorship was no different than the Nazis'.

The Lunatics' dialectic explanation: This is a means for a noble and just cause.



Now:

Fact: The Arabs have never wanted peace. They have always waged war against Israel.

The Lunatics: They have a noble and just cause.



Then:

Fact: Stalin murdered scores of Jews.

The Lunatics: Those Jews were bourgeoisie counter-revolutionists.



Now:

Fact: Arabs murder innocent Jewish civilians.

The Lunatics: Murdering the "evil settlers" in the "West Bank" and Gaza Strip is an understandable and legitimate form of resisting the occupation.



Then:

Fact: Stalin killed scores of revolutionary Marxists-Leninists.

The Lunatics: We should look at the bigger picture. Despite all, we believe in the "Sun of the Nations" and his just cause.



Now:

Fact: Arabs also kill peace loving Leftists who believe in peace and coexistence and are against the occupation.

The Lunatics: We should look at the bigger picture. Despite all, we believe in peace and coexistence.



Then:

Fact: Support for Stalin meant support for his atrocities, dictatorship and killing of Jews.

The Lunatics: We support his just cause, not his terror.



Now:

Fact: Olive groves have been a haven for Arab terrorists.

The Lunatics: We support the olive groves, not the terrorists.



Then:

Fact: The Israeli state was created as a safe haven for Jews.

The Lunatics: Not as an independent state, but as a Soviet pawn state. A good means is not a good means if it is not 100% "ideologically correct."



Now:

Fact: The "fence" is a needed means against Arab terror, and its location is vital, despite the toll that Arabs have to pay.

The Lunatics: Not when the fence punishes the poor Arabs whose brethren are actually the cause for building that fence. A good defense system is not a good defense system if it is not 100% "ideologically correct."



Then

Fact: Some Mapam kibbutzim were established on land that was once owned by Arabs who fled during the 1948 War of Independence. Some kibbutzim employed Arabs in their fields as hourly waged laborers. The same land that once belonged to their brethren.

The Lunatics: Israel should not exploit the Arabs.



Now:

Fact: Israeli settlements were established in Judea, Samaria & Gaza (Yesha) on land that had not been previously occupied nor owned by the Arab population.

The Lunatics: Conquered land should be returned to the Arabs.



So, there you have it, Marxist dialectic lunacy at its best: When it suits them, flaws in the system are accepted, despite the fact that they contradict the very system itself, even if Jews have to pay the toll (or, perhaps, especially if Jews have to pay the toll). When it doesn't suit the Marxists, flaws in the system are not accepted, especially if the poor Arabs have to pay the toll. If Marxism is about equality, then why are Arabs worth more than Jews?



Don't expect a lunatic to explain that.

--------------------------------------------------------

Michael Yaniv is a freelance writer who lives in Massachusetts. He can be reached at myez@rcn.com.

Copyright 2002, by Michael Yaniv.