While in Poland there are theological and parliamentary disputes about the "morning after" pill, in America there is an uproar in connection with the unambiguous plan for the "day after" presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu. After two years of war in Ukraine, no one is planning anything for the "morning after" yet, because this perspective seems too far away. In Gaza, we are increasingly seeing crowds of residents cursing Hamas and even wishing Israel a speedy victory. Such Palestinian protests in London would end badly for them, because first the noble mob would pounce on them, and then they would be arrested by the British police. Odysseus landed on the moon, but the morning after it turned out that it was lying with its head resting on a stone. It either broke its leg or just stumbled on landing. Nothing serious happened to it, although it won't get up again, maybe it'll send some photos. Representatives of the unrestrained and stoned social sciences are glad that these STEM scientists are also not succeeding, especially since this Odysseus is from a private company.
Prime Minister Netanyahu insists that the safety of its people is the most important thing for Israel and that therefore the Israeli army will remain in Gaza for a long time and that self-government will be created slowly and thoughtfully. The U.S. and other countries are opting for unilateral recognition of the "State of Palestine," which the U.S. representative to the United Nations has stated will lead to a final solution. She probably didn't quite know what she said, but she happened to say what she meant. The Israeli government risks tensions and conflicts with its Western allies, but like Golda Meir of old, it believes that it is better to be alive and detested than dead and admired. The Israelis are firmly opposed to the concept of a final solution, which even some Palestinians understand, although no one likes these Palestinians.
A Palestinian living in the U.S. blames the lack of peace with Israel on Arab countries and the concept of the "right of return." Mohamad Ghaoui writes that the "right of return" has long been a cornerstone of the dispute, but there are other implications and complications here that make it difficult to look at it all from a human point of view.
According to this Palestinian, Arab countries have wanted to make money off the Palestinians from the very beginning. This led to their being deprived of their human rights for generations. In Arab countries, Palestinians lack basic rights and are denied access to education and employment. In his opinion, the very term "refugee by birth" is offensive and contrary to the law. There are two reasons for Arab countries to maintain this status: first, money from the rich world, and second, the perpetuation of Jew-hatred, which in turn results in hatred for Palestinians born in the new country and further insistence on the "right of return."
According to Ghaoui, the manipulation of the "right of return" by countries such as Iran has another purpose, which is also related to the concept of the Final Solution.
The longing to live in a better country than Lebanon, Syria or Jordan is perfectly understandable, and Israel may seem like a paradise on earth to people kept in ghettos. However, it is worth considering the right of people living under the boot of Hamas to emigrate, even if the proposal comes from Ben Gvir.
In short, Mohamad Ghaoui proposes to finally part with the "right of return" and allow those who wish to emigrate and be naturalized wherever they are welcomed.
That sounds good, but it is incompatible with the idea of the representatives of the United Nations autocrats and democrats, who need the Palestinians for completely different purposes, which could be hindered by the Palestinians' right to a normal life.
Autocrats are different but quite predictable, and politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats of democratic countries are unfortunately also increasingly predictable. Sometimes I wonder if I remember Friedrich Dürrenmatt's "Romulus the Great" correctly, which I saw staged in the 1960s, and when I recently read an article by the former British Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, I had a strange feeling that I was reading a remake of a play I saw in my youth. Braverman writes:
“They began with the Jews; harsh words of disapproval were voiced in political circles, but the situation has only worsened. Then Islamist madmen and left-wing extremists took control of the streets; The police looked on indifferently. They harassed teachers through the courts; Our laws on human rights and equality have been used against us. They threatened to kill the deputy; [Mike Freer] has decided to leave public life. As a respected politician, Lord Austin spoke out against terrorism and Islamism; He was suspended from the job he loved. They took control of a by-election in an impoverished city in the north of England. We see their impact on our judiciary, our legal profession and our universities.
And then they came to the parliament. On a day when Keir Starmer should have shown strength of character, he bowed to the mob, abused his position and undermined the integrity of parliament."
We get similar images from other Western European countries, from the USA, Canada and Australia. Barbarians are frightening to some, and objects of genuine admiration to others. Outraged by the enfranchisement of the proletariat, the Marxist vanguard found a new proletariat in the most barbaric, deeply patriarchal, and fanatically religious movements. The more these movements hate democracy, the more they delight the bored and angry young.
Israeli columnist Benjamin Kerstein writes about the rise of barbaric progressivism. In an article published last December, Kerstein reminds us that Sigmund Freud, already in exile in London and shortly before his death, wrote that "We live in very extraordinary times. We are astonished to find that progress has made an alliance with barbarism." Of course, he was referring to the power of Nazism and Communism to influence the minds and the use by these powerful ideologies of the most cutting-edge scientific advances while endorsing the most horrific and brutal forms of violence and sadism.
Freud, writes Kertstein:
“… eventually reached very dark conclusions about human nature and the nature of human civilization. He concluded that because civilizational progress required greater and greater repression of the most basic human drives, people are more and more repressed and unhappy the more they progress and the more civilized they become. Eventually, this repression cannot hold, and the savage energies built up beneath centuries of sublimation explode in periodic eruptions of horrendous violence and destruction. Progress, in other words, leads inexorably toward barbarism.”
I'm not a big fan of Freud, but the attraction of barbarism makes me think. A progressive, civilized, courtly petty bourgeois, he looks for narcotic excitement in revolutionary romanticism. The Israeli columnist reflects on the phenomenon of feminists marching side by side with people for whom patriarchy is sacred, homosexuals marching with those who call for the murder of gays (and murder them whenever they can), atheists demonstrating in support of genocidal theocracies, alleged human rights defenders embraced by supporters of tyranny and terrorism.
Is there any reasonable explanation here?
“While today’s progressivism,” Kerstein writes, “maintains its façade of upper-middle class rectitude, it barely conceals a quasi-totalitarian mentality that puts down any dissent or opposition without much compunction. At the same time, many progressives have engaged in considerable violence and allied themselves with forces that are not only violent themselves, but categorically reject the values and mores that progressives themselves claim to hold sacred. Many progressives have gone so far as to adopt ideologies they claim to oppose passionately, such as racial hierarchy and antisemitism.”
Are these lovers of barbarism the majority? No, but they are very good at terrorizing the majority and taking over the media more and more effectively, entering state institutions, penetrating the very top of the political establishment. Some even rebel a little, but not too much, because why put yourself at risk.
Suella Braverman writes in the conclusion of her article:
“Turning a blind eye to fanatics has got us into this terrible situation: it needs to stop.
This is a crisis. And the fightback must start now, with urgency, if we are to preserve the liberties we cherish and the privileges this country affords us all. If we are to have any chance of saving our country from the mob.”
At times I feel like this fight is already lost and I'm not sure I want to know what the morning after will look like.
Translation by Małgorzata Koraszewska and Sarah Lawson
