Too often, people tend to forget that the Israeli Left suffers from a harmful syndrome (in addition to its obvious chronic ailment, which is its pathological guilt trip resulting in a delusional outlook combined with strong anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli national sentiments). The second symptomatic trait that characterizes the Israeli Left, and which is even more dangerous than the primary one, is its uninhibited hypocrisy and the concealing of true facts that pose a threat to its feeble ideology. This trait is fully revealed under proper observation and scrutiny when the Left utilizes the Machiavellian, Orwellian logic, or fabrication - as exemplified further below.
This additional "package" is typical of self-imposed "liberal" elitists and pseudo-idealists, who invent an upside-down, topsy-turvy moral system, to which they adhere with a feverish gusto of "end sacrifices all means," in the best tradition of the Bolshevik ideology. According to this ideology "democracy" was considered as "counter-revolution" and "tyranny" as "equality"; black was white and white was black, as long as this mental acrobatics kept the Party ruling and the misinformed masses were kept in the dark. This tradition invented the "Orwellian Logic", which can be summed up by this maxim: "Today two plus two equals five, because now it's good for the Party, although yesterday I said it equals four because our book sold better that way." One can reasonably argue that this distortion system is as old as the human race, and Machiavelli's The Prince is a good example.
Nevertheless, the Left has developed and articulated this technique as a branch of the communication sciences. This explains why one of the most notorious anti-Jewish, anti-American, anti-Western radical leftists and a self-proclaimed anarchist is MIT's Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics. With proper words and pretentious "critical thinking" one can prove anything, even that black is white, because of no adherence to a basic moral system that makes clear distinctions between white and black. Just think a bit, says Chomsky, and there's no difference between the victimizer and the victim. Think a bit more critically, and the victim is actually the victimizer. Think more creatively, and everybody is equally a victim of the Western way of life.
Another good modern example of this maliciously abusive system is Shimon Peres, who defended the obvious flaws of his lunatic political dream by declaring, "I don't care about history." Thus, he pretended to be an original visionary, despite the fact that in his infamous treatise, The New Middle East, he used numerous historical facts and trends whenever they suited his purpose. The same can be said about the extreme left "post Zionist (= anti-Zionist) new historians", whose "research" has been conducted under academic sub-standards, and whose pragmatic lies and distortions were exposed in Professor Ephraim Karsh's book, Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians and other publications. Karsh said about Benny Morris, a member of that pathetic club, that Morris "would be in jail if he applied his academic standards to his tax returns." Karsh was pro-"land-for-peace," by the way, at least when I met him a few years ago just prior to the current intifada. At that time, he could be tagged as a "leftist", although his academic and personal integrity, honesty and professionalism motivated him to uncover the truth.
Take note: Where did the most radical Israeli leftists, who claim that Israel exploited the Arabs and took their land unlawfully, come from if not from ex-Mapam kibbutzim, many of whose lands had belonged to Arabs before 1948, and who have employed Arabs as hourly waged laborers with no social privileges in their fields? Have any of these kibbutzim relinquished their lands to the "exploited Arabs"? Aren't these kibbutzim just as "evil settlers" as their brethren in Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza), whom the former condemn? If this is not vicious hypocrisy, I don't know what hypocrisy is.
Perhaps hypocrisy is embodied by Meron Benvenisti, who lives in a plush villa in Herzliya, and who said that "he always prefers an Arab village to an Israeli one." Or is it Amos Keinan, who confessed in a recent interview that he loves Arabs more than Jews? Or is it Yossi Sarid, who said that Israeli school students should be exposed to all views and opinions and, therefore, they should be exposed also to "Palestinian" poets, while Massorti rabbis were barred from coming to school? Or is it Ezer Weizmann, who said of Arutz-7 that by "breaking the law" they endangered air traffic and, therefore, if it were up to him he would have knocked them down with an air raid? Needless to say, Weizmann never suggested to pass a law to legalize this military attack. He chose the "bang-and-be-done" course of action. Apparently, he thought that since "he was right," who needed the law?
Fifteen years have passed with not one single aviation accident nor near accident caused by Arutz-7's transmissions, and yet Tommy Lapid appealed to the other ministers? conscience, saying that their hands "would be covered with blood" if Arutz-7 is not taken off the air. But Lapid is an hypocrisy expert. As much as he preached freedom of speech and expression in all walks of life, including politics, he has just now forbidden two Shinui Knesset members who had participated in the Geneva fiasco to publicly support and advance their views. This was done by one of the most fervent antagonists of Shas, which he attacked for not having an independent voice other than Rabbi Ovadia Yosef?s dictates.
Obviously, hypocrisy and distortion of the truth have been the main ingredients of the war on Arutz-7 imposed by the Israeli Left and its cronies in the legal, legislative and media systems. Clearly, the dying Israeli Left, which still has strongholds both in the courts and the media, couldn't have combated Arutz-7 along ideological lines. After all, the Left pretends to stand for democracy, freedom of speech and expression and human rights? blah, blah, blah. Although, sometimes, the Left makes a mistake and forgets to cover its ugly face. It was Yossi Beilin, the advocate of the "new, secular democracy" who declared at a Labor Party meeting when they debated joining a National Unity Government, "since when do we care what the people of Israel think and want?"
Misinformation and disinformation is a main ingredient of the Left's tyrannical credo. Too many times, facts, both current and historical, contradict their ideology. Since their moral system is perverted, or better said, non-existent, the Left would do anything possible to conceal the facts and to try to control the media so that the misinformed citizens would believe the lies leftist mouthpieces force-feed them. Controlling the media and biased, untrue reporting has become one of the main tools of the Left, both in Israel and in the West, in its quest to propagate and instill its distorted views and to make an impact. Many times the ideology is mixed with pure greed and/or megalomaniac tendencies. How would poor Israel survive, if the genius Beilin, elected by nobody, wouldn't save it? How can the Middle East ever reach peace without the blatant anti-Semitic and distorting ex-officio intervention of Jimmy Carter, who is one of America's worst presidents?
Ehud Barak ran his election campaign with a platform which included the slogan "Jerusalem will always be united under Jewish rule." After Barak's Camp David summit with Yasser Arafat had failed, Yossi Beilin was interviewed on IDF Radio and asked why Labor hadn't told the Israeli voters that Labor was willing to cede east Jerusalem to the Arabs. Beilin replied, "We knew we couldn't tell the truth." Amazingly, Israelis didn't take to the streets. Obviously, the Left learned the lesson quickly - cynical lying is an accepted political tool in Israel. Or so they thought.
The political battle disguised as a legal battle on Arutz-7 is loaded with symptomatic expressions and use of leftist hypocrisy and misinformation tactics. The fig leaf that the Left has chosen to cover its undemocratic dark side is obviously "the law".
"What law?" one should ask. Is it the law that the Knesset passed to legalize Arutz-7, and which was revoked by the anti-Jewish "Supreme Court", which decided that "the law was against the law?" The Supreme Court came up with a lame excuse that legalizing Arutz-7 wouldn't be fair for "prospective competitors". What competitors? Abie Nathan, who had sunk his ship, and on whose behalf the same Left, who opposes Arutz-7 because "it was unlawful," had initiated a new legislation to legalize Nathan's Voice of Peace?
What "law" is the Left talking about, if it is obvious that, in Israel, there is no rule of law, but the rule of low politics?
According to the law, the rebellious pilots had to be court-martialed; Beilin was supposed to face trial, or at least an indictment, according to Article 97 of the Penal Law; Ezer Weizmann was supposed to be charged; Arab students at Haifa University were supposed to go to jail for screaming, "Kill the Jews!" in their violent "demonstration"; and Aryeh Deri was supposed to be acquitted, because the prosecution didn't prove anything and the main witness was proven to be a liar.
One can argue that "two wrongs don't make a right." Really? This is not necessarily so, when there are systematic cover-ups, distortions and sweepings under the rug of only one kind of "wrong." The spirit of the law is as important as the word of the law, and the spirit of the law is that you can't discriminate between the "wrongs." But this is exactly what the politicized legal system of Israel has been doing for years and the Arutz-7 affair is only one manifestation of this evil practice. As much as other cases of the brutal political rape of the law are important, the case of Arutz-7 is especially significant, because it directly involves the Left's most vicious struggle for power - the control of the media. This struggle is waged with the Left?s most cherished means - fabricating and distorting facts, and ideological tyranny.
It is, therefore, not a coincidence that, in their relentless struggle to control the flow of information and independent views to the public, the Left and the anti-Jewish "reformers" exercise their notorious hypocrisy and distortion of facts. These traits, along with their delusional national suicide attempt, were instrumental in the Left's demise, as happened in the last elections. The Israeli public deserves to know the facts concealed by both the Left and the new "savior of democracy," a.k.a. Tommy Lapid, both now and more so in the future. This is exactly why Arutz-7 should never fall. Its existence is good for Israel, its democracy, and even for any truly honest and accountable opposition. Too bad there is none, yet.
(c) Michael Yaniv
This additional "package" is typical of self-imposed "liberal" elitists and pseudo-idealists, who invent an upside-down, topsy-turvy moral system, to which they adhere with a feverish gusto of "end sacrifices all means," in the best tradition of the Bolshevik ideology. According to this ideology "democracy" was considered as "counter-revolution" and "tyranny" as "equality"; black was white and white was black, as long as this mental acrobatics kept the Party ruling and the misinformed masses were kept in the dark. This tradition invented the "Orwellian Logic", which can be summed up by this maxim: "Today two plus two equals five, because now it's good for the Party, although yesterday I said it equals four because our book sold better that way." One can reasonably argue that this distortion system is as old as the human race, and Machiavelli's The Prince is a good example.
Nevertheless, the Left has developed and articulated this technique as a branch of the communication sciences. This explains why one of the most notorious anti-Jewish, anti-American, anti-Western radical leftists and a self-proclaimed anarchist is MIT's Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics. With proper words and pretentious "critical thinking" one can prove anything, even that black is white, because of no adherence to a basic moral system that makes clear distinctions between white and black. Just think a bit, says Chomsky, and there's no difference between the victimizer and the victim. Think a bit more critically, and the victim is actually the victimizer. Think more creatively, and everybody is equally a victim of the Western way of life.
Another good modern example of this maliciously abusive system is Shimon Peres, who defended the obvious flaws of his lunatic political dream by declaring, "I don't care about history." Thus, he pretended to be an original visionary, despite the fact that in his infamous treatise, The New Middle East, he used numerous historical facts and trends whenever they suited his purpose. The same can be said about the extreme left "post Zionist (= anti-Zionist) new historians", whose "research" has been conducted under academic sub-standards, and whose pragmatic lies and distortions were exposed in Professor Ephraim Karsh's book, Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians and other publications. Karsh said about Benny Morris, a member of that pathetic club, that Morris "would be in jail if he applied his academic standards to his tax returns." Karsh was pro-"land-for-peace," by the way, at least when I met him a few years ago just prior to the current intifada. At that time, he could be tagged as a "leftist", although his academic and personal integrity, honesty and professionalism motivated him to uncover the truth.
Take note: Where did the most radical Israeli leftists, who claim that Israel exploited the Arabs and took their land unlawfully, come from if not from ex-Mapam kibbutzim, many of whose lands had belonged to Arabs before 1948, and who have employed Arabs as hourly waged laborers with no social privileges in their fields? Have any of these kibbutzim relinquished their lands to the "exploited Arabs"? Aren't these kibbutzim just as "evil settlers" as their brethren in Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza), whom the former condemn? If this is not vicious hypocrisy, I don't know what hypocrisy is.
Perhaps hypocrisy is embodied by Meron Benvenisti, who lives in a plush villa in Herzliya, and who said that "he always prefers an Arab village to an Israeli one." Or is it Amos Keinan, who confessed in a recent interview that he loves Arabs more than Jews? Or is it Yossi Sarid, who said that Israeli school students should be exposed to all views and opinions and, therefore, they should be exposed also to "Palestinian" poets, while Massorti rabbis were barred from coming to school? Or is it Ezer Weizmann, who said of Arutz-7 that by "breaking the law" they endangered air traffic and, therefore, if it were up to him he would have knocked them down with an air raid? Needless to say, Weizmann never suggested to pass a law to legalize this military attack. He chose the "bang-and-be-done" course of action. Apparently, he thought that since "he was right," who needed the law?
Fifteen years have passed with not one single aviation accident nor near accident caused by Arutz-7's transmissions, and yet Tommy Lapid appealed to the other ministers? conscience, saying that their hands "would be covered with blood" if Arutz-7 is not taken off the air. But Lapid is an hypocrisy expert. As much as he preached freedom of speech and expression in all walks of life, including politics, he has just now forbidden two Shinui Knesset members who had participated in the Geneva fiasco to publicly support and advance their views. This was done by one of the most fervent antagonists of Shas, which he attacked for not having an independent voice other than Rabbi Ovadia Yosef?s dictates.
Obviously, hypocrisy and distortion of the truth have been the main ingredients of the war on Arutz-7 imposed by the Israeli Left and its cronies in the legal, legislative and media systems. Clearly, the dying Israeli Left, which still has strongholds both in the courts and the media, couldn't have combated Arutz-7 along ideological lines. After all, the Left pretends to stand for democracy, freedom of speech and expression and human rights? blah, blah, blah. Although, sometimes, the Left makes a mistake and forgets to cover its ugly face. It was Yossi Beilin, the advocate of the "new, secular democracy" who declared at a Labor Party meeting when they debated joining a National Unity Government, "since when do we care what the people of Israel think and want?"
Misinformation and disinformation is a main ingredient of the Left's tyrannical credo. Too many times, facts, both current and historical, contradict their ideology. Since their moral system is perverted, or better said, non-existent, the Left would do anything possible to conceal the facts and to try to control the media so that the misinformed citizens would believe the lies leftist mouthpieces force-feed them. Controlling the media and biased, untrue reporting has become one of the main tools of the Left, both in Israel and in the West, in its quest to propagate and instill its distorted views and to make an impact. Many times the ideology is mixed with pure greed and/or megalomaniac tendencies. How would poor Israel survive, if the genius Beilin, elected by nobody, wouldn't save it? How can the Middle East ever reach peace without the blatant anti-Semitic and distorting ex-officio intervention of Jimmy Carter, who is one of America's worst presidents?
Ehud Barak ran his election campaign with a platform which included the slogan "Jerusalem will always be united under Jewish rule." After Barak's Camp David summit with Yasser Arafat had failed, Yossi Beilin was interviewed on IDF Radio and asked why Labor hadn't told the Israeli voters that Labor was willing to cede east Jerusalem to the Arabs. Beilin replied, "We knew we couldn't tell the truth." Amazingly, Israelis didn't take to the streets. Obviously, the Left learned the lesson quickly - cynical lying is an accepted political tool in Israel. Or so they thought.
The political battle disguised as a legal battle on Arutz-7 is loaded with symptomatic expressions and use of leftist hypocrisy and misinformation tactics. The fig leaf that the Left has chosen to cover its undemocratic dark side is obviously "the law".
"What law?" one should ask. Is it the law that the Knesset passed to legalize Arutz-7, and which was revoked by the anti-Jewish "Supreme Court", which decided that "the law was against the law?" The Supreme Court came up with a lame excuse that legalizing Arutz-7 wouldn't be fair for "prospective competitors". What competitors? Abie Nathan, who had sunk his ship, and on whose behalf the same Left, who opposes Arutz-7 because "it was unlawful," had initiated a new legislation to legalize Nathan's Voice of Peace?
What "law" is the Left talking about, if it is obvious that, in Israel, there is no rule of law, but the rule of low politics?
According to the law, the rebellious pilots had to be court-martialed; Beilin was supposed to face trial, or at least an indictment, according to Article 97 of the Penal Law; Ezer Weizmann was supposed to be charged; Arab students at Haifa University were supposed to go to jail for screaming, "Kill the Jews!" in their violent "demonstration"; and Aryeh Deri was supposed to be acquitted, because the prosecution didn't prove anything and the main witness was proven to be a liar.
One can argue that "two wrongs don't make a right." Really? This is not necessarily so, when there are systematic cover-ups, distortions and sweepings under the rug of only one kind of "wrong." The spirit of the law is as important as the word of the law, and the spirit of the law is that you can't discriminate between the "wrongs." But this is exactly what the politicized legal system of Israel has been doing for years and the Arutz-7 affair is only one manifestation of this evil practice. As much as other cases of the brutal political rape of the law are important, the case of Arutz-7 is especially significant, because it directly involves the Left's most vicious struggle for power - the control of the media. This struggle is waged with the Left?s most cherished means - fabricating and distorting facts, and ideological tyranny.
It is, therefore, not a coincidence that, in their relentless struggle to control the flow of information and independent views to the public, the Left and the anti-Jewish "reformers" exercise their notorious hypocrisy and distortion of facts. These traits, along with their delusional national suicide attempt, were instrumental in the Left's demise, as happened in the last elections. The Israeli public deserves to know the facts concealed by both the Left and the new "savior of democracy," a.k.a. Tommy Lapid, both now and more so in the future. This is exactly why Arutz-7 should never fall. Its existence is good for Israel, its democracy, and even for any truly honest and accountable opposition. Too bad there is none, yet.
(c) Michael Yaniv