KANT VS. ISRAEL

Submitted by Rafi (United States), Aug 20, 2010 at 16:54

WHAT ELSE IS NEW? EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN "INTELLECTUALS" OPPOSED TO NATIONALISM BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 1930'S AND 1940'S. ACTUALLY, IT WAS A COLLECTION OF NATION-STATES SHARING COMMON INTERESTS AND WORLD VIEWS WHICH DEFEATED NOT ONLY NAZISM, BUT, ALSO COMMUNISM. IT WAS NOT THE WORLD FEDERALISTS OR THE UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION WHICH ACCOMPLISHED THESE FEATS.

NATIONALISM IS GOOD. IT ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO SHARE COMMON INTERESTS AND BELIEFS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE. IT IS ONLY THROUGH A NATION-STATE THAT THE JEWS WILL BE SAFE. BOTH THE CHRISTIAN AND THE MUSLIM WORLDS HAVE FOUND KILLING OR PERSECUTING JEWS USEFUL WHEN CONFRONTED WITH INTERNAL STRIFE.

MANY YEARS AGO, PROFESSOR ARTHUR SCHLESINGER SPOKE ABOUT THE TREASON OF THE INTELLECTUAL--ALWAYS ADVOCATING POSITIONS, BUT, ALSO, ALWAYS AVOIDING POWER AND THE UNPLEASANTNESS OF COMPROMISE AND OPPOSITION. IF ONE SEES HOW THE ACADEMICS REACT TO THOSE WHO OPPOSE THEM, BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE ACADEMY, ONE WOULD THINK THAT THEIR MOTHER'S VIRTUE WAS BEING QUESTIONED. BILL BUCKLEY HAD IT RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THAT HE WOULD RATHER BE GOVERNED BY THE FIRST 50 NAMES IN THE MANHATTAN PHONE BOOK THAN BY THE FACULTY OF HARVARD. THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF COMMON WISDOM IN A JURY OF ONE'S PEERS.

THEREFORE, LIKE THE "END OF STATE" PHILOSOPHIES ADVOCATED BY THE "INTELLECTUAL" AND WHOSE DEFEAT WAS PAID FOR BY THE COMMON MAN, I TRUST THAT ISRAEL WILL CONTINUE TO BE A SHINING EXAMPLE OF THE GOOD THAT THE NATION-STATE IS CAPABLE OF ACCOMPLISHING. AND, IF SUCH PHILOSOPHIES CANNOT BE DEFEATED, AT LEAST THE SUPPOSED POSSESSION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE MEANS TO DELIVER THEM BY ISRAEL WILL CAUSE EVEN THE MOST VIRGIN-OBSESSED JIHADI TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".