ISRAELS COLOR REVOLUTION?

Letters from O'Brien #41

[Forgive me for such long stretches of silence. I’ve been pivoting and re-focusing on new business and projects… and you know pivoting can take it out of you as you find your balance again! Now O’Brien had given me the below thoughts last month and it got lost in the cacophony of other voices. But I’ve redeemed the situation, and present you with O’Brien’s thinking out loud from July…]

_____________

Large scale protests and riots have returned to Israel. This comes several months after the initial wave of public outcry against the Netanyahu government for proposing what would be a major judicial reform. The following is a letter I wrote several months ago, when these protests were first raging. Although the situation in Israel is not black and white, western media, as well as many public intellectuals, have taken it upon themselves to frame a convincing picture of events which do not align with reality. While some things have changed since initially writing this letter, the general themes remain the same…

Since 1948, Israel has remained relatively strong as an independent nation, promoting nationalism, family, and religion, and retaining a pro-military stance. As such, Israel has remained perhaps the most criticised nation in the modern world. What many people are unaware of is that many of the strongest critics to this method of survival are within the country itself.

Israel (in a similar vein to Germany) has been in a socio-political struggle against socialist ideas for a long time. This has often manifested itself as a political battle between the more conventional nationalists (Zionists) and the socialists. These socialists were initially pro-Bolshevik immigrants who believed (like Stalin himself) that the newly-formed Israel would become a socialist country, to act as a Soviet satellite in the middle east, but and now hold a common position similar to that of the American New Left (pro-global socialist).

The discord which has been growing over the past few months is evidence of a few things, and practically none of them have been contextually explained by the media (both mainstream and alternative). I will attempt to clarify what is happening in Israel based on the information and opinions I have seen thus far. To be clear, it is not evident whether one side has the moral high ground over the other, as one of the primary points of concern among the public is that their chosen side is trying to prevent a long-term play (to grab power and impose tyranny). This is not intended to be biased towards either side, however I want to attempt to portray things from the Israeli perspective, since their nationalism (obviously) pertains to them.

Thus far, I haven’t really heard any western media outlets discuss this. All of my information comes from both researching the Israeli governments stated aims, actual proposals, and watching translated Israeli interviews.

RIOTS IN ISRAEL

To begin with, the most publicised issue in Israel is the ongoing protests across the country. Many of these protesters are out in response to several proposed reforms by Netanyahu and company. While Netanyahu recently decided to postpone any such decision due to the protests, the point still stands. The reforms stated aims are to limit the Supreme Courts power over Knesset (parliament). Protesters claimed this would allow Knesset to have totalitarian control over Israel.

At this particular point in time, with the information I have read, it seems to me that a large portion of these protesters are regular citizens concerned about right wing religious laws and a restriction on religious freedoms and freedom of speech. However, there also seems to be a strong socialist undercurrent in regards to the direction these protests are heading in; limitations on democratic versatility, which I will add context to in a moment.

On the other side of the aisle, Netanyahu and company claim that the Supreme Courts ability to dictate public policy is itself fundamentally undemocratic. The Supreme Court has the power to review and overrule legislation from Knesset. This is problematic due to the electoral process for selecting justices, but more on that later. Essentially, it is believed that it would be better if the Supreme Court could not intervene in Knesset affairs, and if court justices were selected by Knesset, who are democratically elected representatives, and thus reflect the opinions of the people more accurately.

The counter-argument from ‘the public’ is that Netanyahu is attempting to remove ‘checks and balances’ which limit corruption, since the Supreme Court can overrule Knesset decisions. The obvious fallacy here is that Knesset is assumed to be plagued by corruption, whilst the Supreme Court is somehow immune to said corruption. One argument against the reforms is that removing the supreme courts ‘final say’ in matters would open the door to religious laws (Noahide laws). While there is little doubt that some within do want a return of religious law, the reforms being presented would make the implementation of any such laws far harder as far as I can tell, and I will explain this soon. I may be overlooking a loophole, but the claim essentially boils down to something like this; liberal Israelis fear right-wing nationalism and religious laws being implemented in the same way that liberal Americans fear ‘Christian Nationalism’ as a byproduct of conservative power. In both cases there are individuals and parties who clearly state this as their goal, but whether or not these groups really have any scale or power across the population is questionable.

What few are talking about (thus far) is the true nature of the Israeli Supreme Court and its processes. Unlike court systems in other ‘westernised’ nations, Israels Supreme Courts are bureaucratic in nature, strangely similar to the European Union. Like the EU, court justices are not appointed democratically but are bureaucratically chosen behind closed doors. Their position is not a result of public choice. Israels Supreme Court - as with the EU - is a ‘Soviet’ of unelected officials making decisions which are not scrutinised (and can not be) by the public or by publicly elected officials on behalf of the citizens. This outstrips even the US courts in terms of bureaucracy, as even the US has a somewhat ‘open’ process for appointing new justices. As far as I am aware, it appears that the public cannot even ‘vote out’ justices from the Supreme Court if they see it fit.

As if this weren’t a red flag in itself, the Supreme Court also has a socialist bias in its decision marking. Thus far Israeli Supreme Court justices have shown bias towards pro-globalist agendas, have worked against Israeli nationalism (which in Israel is necessary for the country to survive), and act - as with many unelected individuals in power - as if they were gifted with divine knowledge to guide ‘the people’.

With that in mind, it is worth highlighting the power of the court justices again. The Supreme Court can use its position to ‘review’ and reject anything which is considered a hinderance to a globalist socialist agenda. This is a blatant necessity for a socialist agenda to actually succeed, since the court can act (at least in the early stages) as a form of centralised and unchallenged power in order to bring about change within the nation. Knesset is - in many ways - less centralised and thus open to public scrutiny and change. After all, since the public did not decide on these justices, what is to say that their opinions reflect the broader opinions of anyone outside of themselves and the ideologies they have decided to uphold?

As mentioned earlier, Israels long struggle with socialism has - perhaps - surpassed the struggle with socialism being waged in the United States. Supposedly Israel has no mainstream conservative media outlets left, while America still retains Fox News and the like. This is strange, considering a large percentage of the Israeli population is nationalist and conservative in their preferences, and this was recently made evident in yet another victory for Netanyahu.

As one commentator highlighted, a good example of the strange leftist-bias emanating from the Supreme Court can be seen in an older decision to shut down a right-leaning radio station. The decision was made by the Supreme Court justices, and went unchallenged. In contrast, a similar decision was proposed by Knesset to shut down an openly admitted Communist newspaper. The Supreme Court was asked to intervene and prevent this ‘undemocratic’ decision (which they did). This is a carbon-copy of the situation in the US, in which socialist causes are artificially amplified through both the media and state, whilst issues faced by conservatives - regardless of their popularity - are artificially dampened in order to give the illusion that there is no public call for pro-conservative action.

NETANYAHU: SUSPICIOUS?

Netanyahu, in some respects, could be characterised as an “Israeli Donald Trump”; widely hated for controversial and radical opinions on topics which most leave untouched. This is a double edged sword, since Netanyahu - as many love to point out - was involved in the World Economic Forum for a time. While I am not so sure about an allegiance to the WEF, it is evident that Netanyahu and the conservatives do seek to advance nationalism and religious laws in Israel (decidedly not WEF right-think). The reasons for this are complex, and I will try and explain.

But first, it is important to understand what is meant when Jews refer to Netanyahu and the Israeli conservatives as ‘dangerous’ or ‘tyrannical’. Returning to an earlier point, most of Netanyahu’s strongest opponents are either Israeli nationals or foreign Jews (particularly American Jews) who believe that Zionism is ‘anti-Jewish’. This view is primarily held by progressives, many of whom also stand against any form of objective Christian values in the west.

Modern Israel still strives to unite Jews from all over the world, just as ancient Israel had done. However, most modern Jews view unity as a byproduct of lineage and heritage alone, however this is not so clear. While community and lineage were important factors in ancient Israel, it is made evident in scripture that the primary binding factor was unified religious beliefs. Objective morality flowed from this, and so too did laws, regulations, and other specifics surrounding governance. This is why foreigners could adopt Jewish law and settle there, while Jews themselves were to either adopt the traditions or be outcast. This is almost always ignored when considering modern Israel. Lineage and religious faith made up the foundation of ancient Israel, with priority towards faith, and if modern Israel seeks to keep the tradition going, that is the endpoint.

In modern Israel, a large percentage of the Jewish population disagree with this perspective. Instead, they believe that everything essentially boils down to lineage, hence why one is considered a ‘Jew’ even if he adheres to Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Many of the conservatives see the contradictions of this when extrapolated into the long term; a breakdown of objective values and morality, a fracturing of society, and eventually the collapse of Israel (which - given the geopolitical implications - requires a strong and unified society in order to survive).

This ‘lineage’ view of Israel contradicts the scriptural Israel. If Israel is nothing more than a state unified by race alone, then it isn’t so much nationalist in the traditional sense as it is ‘Volkische’. This is the same label which could be applied to 1930s German Nationalism, in which the ‘nation’ was the race, hence why the idea of a Pan-Germanism (Großdeutschland) was seen as ‘nationalist’ despite the fact that it had no correlation to pre-1914 German borders, nor any other historically-German territory. Yes, it is a strange comparison, but it is a widely understood example of what I am speaking of.

The problem with Volkische ideology in the long term (as the Germans would have found out if they had won the war) is that it has to either be paired with objective ‘religious’ beliefs or risk decaying into warring clans and groups. This is because race does not result in a strong ‘nation’, but rather culture and objective beliefs. The Germans did have the idea of removing classical Christianity and Judaism, and replacing it with a modernised form of Germanic Paganism, but whether or not this would be adopter or successful as a new religion is questionable.

Likewise, the counter-argument by Israeli liberals is that Jewish ‘culture’ is independent from Judaism as a religion, so even if Israel is a religiously pluralistic nation, it will be united by culture. This is somewhat true, but in the long term it will not work; reason being that Jewish culture does not establish anything in the realm of the objective, whereas Orthodox religious Judaism does. To make a point of this; a ‘Hindu Jew’ may adhere to Jewish culture and tradition, but he is fundamentally at odds with a religious Jew, since the Hindu is by definition worshipping foreign gods. The Hindu does not even remotely share the same objective views as the Orthodox in this sense.

I have also read justifications of pluralism in which Israel is compared to the United States; a ‘religiously free’ yet successful nation. Again, this is not true. America’s success stems from American culture and faith. Americans came from all over the world, but the majority adhered to the same objective truths based out of Judaeo-Christian values. These objective beliefs formed the foundations of the nation and lead to great prosperity and success. However, now that roughly half of the American population has rejected this idea, the country is in rapid decline. The same thing will happen (or is happening) to Israel.

I remember reading a newspaper article from the 1920s. It was written by Winston Churchill and discussed the possibility of a Jewish homeland in British Mandated Palestine. Essentially, Churchill said that Jews who were disenfranchised and ostracised from their homes in the west (which was increasingly common during the time) would be presented with the moral decision to choose between two ideologies; globalist secular Bolshevism (which was gaining traction amongst ostracised Jewish youth), and nationalist conservative Zionism (which was also gaining traction). Churchill said this would be a battle for the soul of the Jewish people, and claimed that the Jews would only find proper unity (and thus survive) if they chose the nationalist option. I am not advocating or supporting the views held by the Israeli conservatives, but if one were to be ‘logical’ from the Israeli perspective, these arguments essentially boil down to a battle between religious conservatism and secular socialist globalism, and in the case of Israel it is unlikely that a secular and fractured socialist nation would hold out long given the near-unified hostility shown to it by its neighbours and the world more broadly.

FOREIGN INTERVENTION

One of the most interesting claims amongst this whole ordeal has been that of foreign intervention. This is something which should not be surprising given the fact that religiously conservative decisions in a sovereign nation are usually under scrutiny from powerful foreign interest groups. The claim of direct interference has been made by many conservatives in Israel. Given the nature of the past few months, it is hard to say for sure where this foreign interference flows from, and there doesn’t seem to be enough evidence to really extrapolate on this. However, when individuals with a strong socialist leaning such as Yuval Noah Harari write articles aimed at Netanyahu titled “My message to Netanyahu: Stop your coup or we will stop your country” something is obviously up.

Regardless, the US administration clearly has conflicting interests with the Israeli government. From the US president to the media, there has been a continue stance taken against anything passed by the Israeli conservatives. Now for some added context, it is also worth noting that Netanyahu is a rather suspect character himself. Many Israeli conservatives in the past were backed by foreign interest groups. The reasons for this are uncertain, although it is likely that - just as with Stalin in 1948 - there is a strong motivation to have geopolitical power within and over Israel and the Middle East more broadly. There is something here worth paying attention to.

Israelis are claiming that western interest groups are pushing false narratives in order to force revolutionary change. One of these supposed false narratives is the claim extrapolated by western liberal media that Itamar Ben-Gvir - a radical religious conservative - has been (or will be) given power through the passing of legislations to remove all Palestinians and Christians from the country, so that it is exclusively Jewish, followed by the implementation of Noahide religious law. For context, Ben-Gvir is a radically orthodox politician within the Jewish Power party who took several seats following last years election. His controversial religious comments are continually used by western media as ‘proof’ that Netanyahu is harbouring terrorists. He is perhaps the most controversial figure in Israeli politics, due to his extreme stance on Israeli nationalism, but it is unlikely (especially given the sheer logistical nightmare such a decisions would entail) that any of his deportation proposals would be taken seriously.

But the question has to be asked; does he actually have the power to do any of this? Thus far western media claims that he both has the power, and is actively using it to suppress Palestinians. A particularly provocative circulation within western media shows videos of young men running through the streets harassing Palestinians. The claim is that these are members of Jewish Power - which may actually be correct - and are acting on the behest of the Israeli government - which is almost certainly false. Some of these videos are from completely different times and contexts, and have been re-labelled to suit a particular narrative.

However the overarching theme here is that Ben-Gvir can potentially operate with some power as a result Netanyahu’s decision to organise what is being described as a ‘national guard’. The details on this seem too fogged by propaganda on both sides, so I won’t bother getting into it. But essentially this is the issue that US and globalist entities can use to manipulate the population. Whether or not this national guard will even closely resemble what is being claimed is anyones guess; but what does matter is the fear which its potential implementation can have on swaying public opinion. It is possible that it could occur, but it would doom Netanyahu, and would contradict his stated aim of removing Supreme Court intervention into democratic matters. Commentators are calling it a ‘regime change’ and calling on (as former globalist Israeli PM Ehud Barak put it) ‘counter revolutionary movements’ to prevent it.

Going back to a previous point on religious conservativism in Israel; it seems that more and more Israelis are claiming that the US and other foreign globalist interest groups are stepping on Israels sovereignty. The claim by many - including Netanyahu - is that Israels sovereignty is the choice for its population to decide in which direction the country heads, and for a foreign entity to step in when nothing morally corrupted has yet even happened is an infringement of national sovereignty. This is often tied in with the controversial view regarding America and its apparent proclivity to view Israel as a satellite state by proxy of the military funding it receives, essentially justifying America having a say in Israeli domestic issues.

Broadly speaking, a conservative Israel may require American funding to continue operating, but some on Israels conservative side view American funding as helpful, but also as a gateway for foreign interference (e.g. American politicians feeling entitled to sway Israeli legislation in exchange for continued funding). Although it will have a higher chance of success than a socialist secular Israel, it is possible that it will still struggle to survive.

LACK OF CONTEXT

Thus far, ‘freedom movement’ social media accounts and channels have done nothing more than push these riots as if they were ‘anti-dictatorship’ or ‘anti-LGBT’ protests. The irony here is strong, and mirrors what I likely mentioned in a previous letter; that many modern conservatives in the ‘freedom movement’ are beginning to rehash traditional Marxist talking points, including rioting against ‘existing power structures’ without a proper cause, and calling for the overturning of cultural structures without justification.

However, I cannot really criticise these social media accounts too much, since most protests in recent years have been against increased bureaucratic control, not for it, as we are now seeing.

The problems in Israel are not simple, and due to the huge gap between Judaism and western Christianity, most westerners would relate more to Israeli socialists (who share globalist ideas) than to Israeli conservatives and Orthodox Jews (who are nationalist but seem foreign due to their radically different religion).

MOVING FORWARD

From a western perspective, both ‘outcomes’ for Israel do not seem preferable. If the conservative claim is true, then Israel slowly corrodes under socialist bureaucracy. If the liberal claim is true, religious law will be imposed and freedoms limited on those who do not wish to convert or adhere. As I highlighted, the Jewish people would technically have a stronger country if unified under a single objective set of beliefs, but this could potentially (in the extreme case) come at the cost of freedom. Regardless of my opinions - or the opinions of most westerners - Israel is in an increasingly dangerous position as a nation; western nations who historically helped Israel are increasingly skeptical on a bipartisan basis. Not only that, but many Arab nations opinions towards Israel have soured once again in recent years.

Unlike western politics, the situation in Israel seems like a lose-lose and especially so from a Western/Christian ideal of free will. It seems to come down to the battle between globalist socialism, and religious zionism. The Israelies are not Americans, or British, or French. They do not hold to the same religious or cultural concepts as the rest of the western world, and as such the ‘conservative’ option here seems catered to a very specific group - as conservatism often is when applied to a nation or people group. But the counterpoint - the globalist socialist possibility - is something which threatens all people regardless of nationality or culture. It is a corrosive force which stands against the fundamentals of human life.

If the Biden administration’s claim is true - that Israels conservative leadership are going to establish a volkische state - then it may be the first insightful criticism Biden has made during his presidency. The problem is, his alternative of globalist socialism is even more destructive. If Israel does turn to a volkische state and begins persecuting Arabs and Christians, America will likely cut ties with the nation, and if this happens then Israel can only turn to herself. Lack of freedom usually results in stifled creativity. The problem compounds.

The situation in Israel does highlight to me how valuable are our classical western values - particularly those in America. In contrast to what is propagated throughout the rest of the world, the answer to most of the worlds problems lay in the solution the founding fathers of the United States happened across; a nation founded in Biblical truth, freedom, liberty, and justice.

Yours

O’Brien