Liora Ziv-Ami: The “Global Village” Against the Jews

Liora Ziv-Ami:            

The challenges mankind faces in our day and age differ in principal from those encountered by any of the previous generations. In one way or another, we have all come to recognize that qualitative changes have occurred in the fundamental existence of people joined together by the development of civilization to form a single “global village”.
Understanding what this new situation implied became a vital necessity. It is only natural for people to want to figure out the essence of the reality which they themselves have created. They want to grasp the specific nature of the challenges they are facing and the goals they should set themselves.
In this situation, it was only a matter of time before someone would suggest a new conceptual framework for this new global environment.

1

After the end of the Cold War it appeared that the global confrontation between East and West was over since the triumph of Western values, the values of the free world, seemed undeniable. This perception was reflected in Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History,” where the author shared his view of the contemporary world… The conflicts which “shook the world” throughout its history are now a thing of the past, he writes, since there are no more grounds for them. Mankind stands today on the threshold of a new era, when all people will join together their mutually advantageous efforts to resolve universal problems and reap the benefits of civilization.
At approximately the same time, in the early 1990’s, there also appeared a diametrically opposite conception. Its author Samuel Huntington continued to see the present-day world as one brimming with conflict and fragmented into mutually incompatible collectives-civilizations, where people are united by a system of traditional values that evolved historically. The specific values of the Western civilization, in Huntington’s view, far from being universal, are profoundly alien to all non-Western civilizations. This leads Huntington to conclude that the contemporary world is moving toward a clash of civilizations.

2

Despite all the obvious differences between these two conceptions, there are two fundamental features which they have in common.
First feature. Neither of these theories tries in any way to connect with the Holy Scripture, even though the Bible delineated the concept of a global world long before the appearance of the “global village.” Moreover, this concept is described there in sufficient detail to outline the general contours of such a world.
…So mankind’s development is indeed progressing toward some final stage called “the end of days,” which is to be followed by universal harmony (according to Fukuyama). However, at “the end of days” mankind will be separated into nations, and each of them will preserve its internal unity due to common values and a shared faith (according to Huntington).
This fragmentation will be overcome and unity will be achieved only after the nations themselves recognize the limitations of their traditional values and turn to a single center. Such a center is Mt. Sinai from which the teaching of G-d, the One who created all men, will spread around the world. G-d will judge all nations and will give them instructions that will assist people in understanding their Creator. Recognition of His power over united mankind will become the basis for a single world order.
Contemporary globalistic theories do not offer anything similar to this conceptual framework found in the Bible.
Second feature. Neither of these conceptions makes any mention of the Jews as a special people chosen by G-d or the Jewish state. But it was the Jews who introduced to the world the very ideas which have given rise to the modern civilization. In the Holy Scriptures the main event of “the end of days” is described as the return of the Jewish people scattered amidst other nations to the land of their forefathers. There, at “the end of days” the Jews will rebuild the national home of the descendants of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob.
The significance of this event lies in the fact that the nations will not simply turn to Zion. They will say to each other: “…let us go up to the Lord's mount, to the house of the G-d of Jacob,” – to the House belonging to the descendants of the third Patriarch, Jacob, who received the name of Israel from G-d Himself.
The conceptions of Fukuyama and Huntington do not encompass the special mission Jews have in the world.
It follows from these two globalistic theories that the world simply has no need of the Jews.
It is therefore natural that that the implementation of a theory where there is no place for something or someone (in this case, the Jewish state and Jews as a chosen people) in effect leads to their practical elimination (in this case, the Jewish state and Jews as a chosen people).
Even though the creators of these globalistic conceptions and the acting political leaders who implement these theories may not set themselves such goals and are, perhaps, not even aware of the consequences their theories and actions may have, this result is inevitable. Such is the inescapable logic of the conceptions themselves. And this logic can be discovered by turning to the facts which allow us to trace the ways in which these conceptions are put into political practice.

3

Bill Clinton was President of the world’s only superpower at the time when we all lived according to Fukuyama. Clinton was an ardent believer in the ability to unite self-absorbed mankind on the basis of world trade. Shimon Peres in Israel shared his beliefs, dreaming of a New Middle East whose inhabitants ultimately come to understand that mutual consumption of commodities and services is the common goal and to achieve it they must resolve old enmities.
What did we get in the end? Under the impact of the ideals proposed by Shimon Peres and his supporters Arafat became a legitimate public figure and we witnessed the signing of the Oslo “peace” accords. The only reason this happened was because in accordance with Fukuyama’s theory we started to believe that the problems of the Promised Land were resolved once the Cold War was over and that in the newly emerging reality Arafat and his cronies would simply want to live and consume like the rest of the world.
How did these beliefs affect us, Jews? All the values cherished by the Jewish people in the course of their ill-fated history were subjected to ridicule and proclaimed irrelevant in the era of “the end of days” when the above-mentioned ideals were being implemented. Those Jews who had the courage to defend these values were strongly condemned as enemies of peace and the world. In the eyes of the world community the Jews acquired the status of occupiers of the Promised Land and Jerusalem, people who were preventing the rest of mankind from living a peaceful and prosperous life. The unheard of campaign of terror unleashed by the Jewish “partners” in the “peace” process which resulted in the killing and mutilation of thousands of Jews began to be perceived as a rightful struggle against the aggressor. Shimon Peres solemnly called the innocent victims of this “peace” process “peace victims.”
The first stage in the implementation of globalistic conceptions where there was no place for the Jewish state and Jews as the chosen people ended with the achievement of certain definite goals: the killing of Israeli Jews and disdain for the eternal values of the Jewish people were legitimized in the eyes of the entire world.

4

The collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 dispelled the illusions of the 1990s reflected in Francis Fukuyama’s concept of globalism. Everyone now turned to Huntington and, consequently, arrived at the conclusion that we were dealing with a clash of civilizations. Western values were indeed alien to the non-western non-democratic world, which necessitated changes in policy.
American neo-conservatives formulated these new guiding principles of U.S. foreign policy: if non-western civilizations do not accept our values we will force them to do it. These principles determined President Bush’s policy of “total democracy.”
How did this new policy affect us, Jews? It gave birth to the dream of a Democratic Palestine, and for it to become reality it was necessary to expel the Jews from the Promised Land. The “road map” for peace was announced, which strengthened the “Palestinian” self-identity of this special people that had never before existed but received the support of the world community of nations. The “Palestinians” were given the opportunity to exercise their choice, and they did: they democratically elected Hamas to lead the “Palestinian” legislature – choosing the organization most antagonistic and uncompromising toward Israel (and, incidentally, equally antagonistic to foreign and alien western values).
The second stage in the implementation of globalistic conceptions where there was no place for the Jewish state and Jews as the chosen people also ended with the achievement of certain definite goals: world public opinion was now thoroughly convinced that the Promised Land could and had to be cleared of the Jews in order to free it for the “people” who had been invented and nurtured by the global community.

5

That, however, is not the end of it. Everybody realizes that there must be a third stage in this process. What will it be? All we need to do to find an answer to this question is go back to the aforementioned globalistic theories.
The conclusion drawn by the neo-conservatives did not at all follow from Huntington’s theory. Quite to the contrary, Samuel Huntington insisted that we should learn to survive in the existing conflict of civilizations, whenever possible smoothing over the disagreements and finding compromises in those areas that the opposing civilization finds the most objectionable. But it is an undisputed fact that it finds most objectionable the very existence of the state of Israel! So Professor Huntington makes the logical conclusion from his globalistic theory: U.S. support of the state of Israel only serves to exacerbate the conflict, and, therefore, this policy should be revised.
In view of the obvious failure of President Bush’s policy of “total democracy” it can be predicted with some certainty that his political opponents will use this to win the next round of presidential elections. This group of leaders does not make a secret of their future policies. They intend to pursue a policy for Israel's demise, fully in accordance with the conclusions Samuel Huntington has drawn from his own globalistic theory. 

6

Let us now summarize the results of the implementation of recent globalistic theories.
All the inhabitants of the “global village” have gradually accepted, based on these conceptions, that a/ it is OK to kill the Jews as occupiers of the Promised Land; b/ it is OK, and even necessary, to expel the Jews from the Promised Land until this nation, hassled by the world community, ends up within the shrunk borders – rightly called the “Auschwitz borders” – of what is supposedly the Jewish state. The next step after such “accomplishments” would be simply to retreat, leaving the Jewish people to be slaughtered by the allies of the opposing civilization who have been armed to the teeth well in advance.
Bitter regrets will undoubtedly follow after the event. “How could we have known? We didn’t think it would go that far… We’re so sorry…”  The unfolding scenario will be very much like the one we already know, in which it has become fashionable to bemoan the fate of the victims of Auschwitz. But these laments and crocodile tears should not deceive anyone. Unlike natural disasters, human calamities are man-made. That’s what makes it possible to follow the course of preparation beforehand and draw the appropriate conclusion.
Here is that unequivocal conclusion: contemporary globalistic conceptions lay down the theoretical foundations and prepare world public opinion for the inevitable – the destruction of the Jewish state and another Holocaust of the Jewish people. [link]

posted by: jrtelegraph

                        

Comments

[Anna]

The war against Jews is a huge part of the so called "War on terror". That's why every anti-semite has been against the war in Iraq, since it removed one of the biggest Israeli enemies.
We hope that US deals with Iran next.
History will prove once again that what is good for Jews is good for mankind.