Herbert Zweibon

In Imprimis, the publication of the Hillsdale Institute, Professor John Marini describes two fundamentally different philosophies that have underpinned American political debate for the last sixty years, the first typified by Franklin Roosevelt, the second by Ronald Reagan. Roosevelt and his followers believed in “government as the source of benevolence, the moral embodiment of the collective desire to bring about social justice as a practical reality” while Reagan saw “the bureaucratic state as increasingly tyrannical and destructive of inalienable rights.”

While the clash of these ideas has admittedly in some cases become ugly, we are fortunate in this country to have people who believe ardently in different philosophies of government and are prepared to organize and work for them. I attended the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) conference in Washington in February and was deeply impressed by the huge turnout of young people, their level of knowledge, enthusiasm and determination to pursue the political principles in which they believed.

Contrast this with Israel. In the almost sixty years since independence, the bedrock principles of the major parties have disappeared. In the first thirty years there were competing views of the Zionist mission, with the dominant socialist labor Zionist perspective pitted against that of the Herut Party led by Menachem Begin, which focused on Jewish rights to the entire Land of Israel. But once Begin became Prime Minister in 1977 he gave away the Sinai peninsula and at Camp David formally accepted Arab rights to Judea and Samaria, Israel’s patrimony.

Since Oslo the political elite, regardless of the party in power, has been devoid of any principles, flinging away territory to terrorists, competing which leader can outbid the other in appeasing Israel’s enemies by preemptive concessions. In the absence of any guiding ideas, the political arena has become a battle of individuals greedy for office, prepared to induce the public to swallow poisoned Kool-Aid in the form of the most absurd peace fantasies.

We need only look at the current political choice, between the Olmert-led Kadima and the Netanyahu-led Likud. Unbelievably, Olmert says he is prepared to “treat seriously” the Saudi “peace initiative” first floated in 2002 and rejected out of hand by Israel at the time. Nor has the plan been modified – it calls for Israel to return to the 1967 borders (i.e. the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes) and return of the “refugees” to pre-1967 Israel. Jordan’s King Abdullah, whom Jewish leaders, for unfathomable reasons, continue to claim is “a friend” has announced this last item (i.e. an end to the Jewish state in any borders) is “non-negotiable.”

And Netanyahu? While he is forthright about the danger from Iran, he spouts similar nonsense about the Saudis and Israel’s supposedly “moderate” Arab neighbors. “I see a unique opportunity for progress in the peace process with moderate Arab partners, for a simple reason: There is identification of a shared threat…and that allows for the creation of alliances with various elements in the Arab world as well as in Palestinian society.” In fact, Sunni concern over growing Shia power has merely led to a Sunni effort to outbid Iran in the effort to win credit in the region for annihilating Israel. Hence the Saudi imposition of the Mecca Accord, which forced Fatah to surrender to Hamas, paving the way for international acceptance of the Hamas government.

Israel has desperate need of a leadership willing to speak the truth and act on principle. Such leaders would once again give Israelis the sense of the justice of their claim to the land in which they live. Such leaders would articulate the need for sacrifice and standing firm. Such leaders would be honest about the depths of Arab/Moslem opposition to the state’s existence and explain that appeasement is precisely