A minor nationalist political party in Israel

From the Bead Artseinu website:
"Israel shall be from the Nile to the Euphrates
By Rav Avraam Shmulevich


Terrorist attacks in Israel have begun to take place on a fearfully regular basis.

Take the last two weeks: there was another explosion, leaving two people dead and another fifteen wounded – two of them, a 51-year-old woman and a 22-year-old chap, are in very severe condition, having all the vital organs damaged by splinters. Hizbollah’s artillery shelled the Northern town of Shlomi, killing a teenager and wounding four other people. Jewish settlements around Gaza became the target of nearly ten rocket attacks; for the first time in Israel’s history did rockets fall on the land of Ashkelon. Road skirmishes and “minor attacks” with a few victims have already become the daily norm…



Is this war? No, this is what peace looks like nowadays.



Collin Powell, USA’s Secretary of State, has already let us know that the armistice agreement with the Palestinians will not be cancelled; according to him, it has not been violated at all. “We can’t allow this to happen. We are continuing to move forward according to the “Road Map”. We will do anything that lies within our power. Bombs and violence can’t stop us.” The Department of State urged all sides, including Israel, to show restraint. This means no reciprocal actions against the Hizbollah and no liquidation of terrorist infrastructures within the autonomy will be undertaken.



Is America really that blind? Or is it naively seeing the Islamic fanatics as fighters for freedom and independence? Neither. The Americans, the Europeans and the rest of the world simply pursue their own interests, orientating themselves towards the strongest – and in the current situation, the Arabs, the HAMAS and the PLO appear to them to be the strongest, the most dynamic and the most promising side.



Samuel Huntington, one of the main ideologists of modern American foreign policy, wrote in his programme work The Clash of Civilizations: “As revolutions unfold, moderates, Girondists and Mensheviks lose to radicals, Jacobeans and Bolsheviks. Similar processes usually take place along the break-up lines of civilizations. Those who are moderate and have narrow aims (for example, autonomy instead of independence) are unable to succeed by means of negotiations, which usually fail right at the beginning. They are therefore displaced and forced out by radicals, who aim at far more remote targets using violent methods.” It’s he who sets himself daring tasks on a global scale that wins – in the eyes of the public opinion, too. Arafat, the PLO and the HAMAS have set themselves such a target: to create their own state where Israel now stands. That being done, the whole world will hold its breath to lend them an ear.



Israel, at the same time, is in a state of crisis. This is primarily a crisis of ideas and of ideology. It resembles the one happening hundred years ago, when the question about the re-creation of Israeli was raised for the first time. The path then taken – the creation of an independent Jewish state as a solution to the problems of security and the economic existence of the Jewish people – has justified itself fully. Towards the end of the 19th century, everyone had already realised that the Jewish nation has been pushed into crisis conditions: apart from a rise in economic and political discrimination in nearly all of the countries, the threat against the very existence and physical security of the Jews has risen considerably. Moderate Jewish circles then suggested some accordingly moderate options, namely to fight for the improvement of living conditions at their dwelling place and/or to move to other countries where these would be better. In this case, the term “moderate” was to include liberals as well as autonomists, bund-supporters and communists as well as assimilators. One factor united them: all of the proposed solutions were traditional and had no radical novelties in them. From the age of the Assyrian expulsion onwards, the Jews have always acted within the usual limits: they would bribe the king, kill the king, organise a mass revolt or just slip away from the country to a milder one. Only the Zionists turned out to be real radicals, proposing a seemingly mad idea: to regain the land of Israel, where practically no Jews were left. A land ruled by Arabs and Turks, with the English, the French and the Russians preparing to take their place… To regain it, and to build an independent state.



The “normal” Jews twirled their fingers around their temples and did everything to stop the madmen, anxious not to get hit when the latter would get beaten with sticks.

And yet, although the builders of the Israeli state did not read Huntington, they acted correctly: to win, one needs to smash the enemy’s capital, the control centre. To think about the seizure of the next line of trenches alone means to suffer a guaranteed defeat in the war. Only a global radical aim allows to re-form fully for war and to use all the available resources with maximum efficiency. By the way, “radical” originally meant “fundamental” or “deeply rooted”.



Today, just like a century ago, the Jewish people are facing the same problems: physical security and economic survival. If the Arabs won’t shoot Israel dead, the economic crisis will finish it off. Here is an axiom: to cure an illness, one needs to reach its initial cause. However, the causes that led to these crises and brought us to the edge of the abyss can only be found far away from our borders. It is not the Tel-Aviv stock exchange that is tied up with our economy and our material well being. It is not the decisions reached in Jerusalem and Ramallah that determine which route the events in the Near East will take, be it peace or war. As far as both military and economical spheres are concerned, we are involved in some rather global processes. We will only achieve the state of affairs we desire and the decisions we desire if we will be able to have a decisive influence on the way these decisions will be reached. He who is not able to impose his will on others is doomed to carry out the will of others – forever. Our fire needs to be centred on the headquarters: this is the only way in which wars, not skirmishes, are won. That’s actually an elementary idea.



Just like a century ago, moderate half-and-half approaches have outlived themselves. We have to go beyond the limits of usual borders and obvious concepts. Once again, a global aim, a global strategy, a radical (that is, a fundamental) solution is needed. This will be the State of Israel, controlling a territory from the Nile to the Euphrates, and able to defend its interests through a decisive influence on the processes taking place everywhere from Mekong to Rio-Grande. This is the only imperative of our survival in the new century.



One should obviously not forget about the spiritual side while dealing with the material one. Israel will only be strong if the Jews will act according to the will of the Most High, obeying His laws. The way out of a crisis is always a spurt, a fundamental change in the way of thinking and the way of life. A state incapable of changing is doomed. The difference between the Jews and the other nations is that we always managed to get out of crises, though we sometimes lost millions of people.

I am certain that we can cope with the problems surrounding us today, too, hopefully without paying such a high price for it. Especially as Gd exists, and is on our side.



“The days are surely coming, says the L-rd, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: “The LORD is our righteousness.” (Jeremiah 33:14 –16)



Translated by Miron Fedorov
mironfedorov@hotmail.com "

official site